Biosensing methods and devices using graphene oxide (GO) have recently been explored for detection and quantification of specific biomolecules from body fluid samples, such as saliva, milk, urine, and serum. For a practical diagnostics application, any sensing system must show an absence of nonselective detection of abundant proteins in the fluid matrix. Because lysozyme is an abundant protein in these body fluids (e.g., around 21.4 and 7 μg/mL of lysozyme is found in human milk and saliva from healthy individuals, and more than 15 or even 100 μg/mL in patients suffering from leukemia, renal disease, and sarcoidosis), it may interfere with detections and quantification if it has strong interaction with GO. Therefore, one fundamental question that needs to be addressed before any development of GO based diagnostics method is how GO interacts with lysozyme. In this study, GO has demonstrated a strong interaction with lysozyme. This interaction is so strong that we are able to subsequently eliminate and separate lysozyme from aqueous solution onto the surface of GO. Furthermore, the strong electrostatic interaction also renders the selective adsorption of lysozyme on GO from a mixture of binary and ternary proteins. This selectivity is confirmed by sodium dodecyl sulfate polyacrylamide gel electrophoresis (SDS-PAGE), fluorescence spectroscopy, and UV-vis absorption spectroscopy.
Biosensing methods and devices using graphene oxide (GO) have recently been explored for detection and quantification of specific biomolecules from body fluid samples, such as saliva, milk, urine, and serum. For a practical diagnostics application, any sensing system must show an absence of nonselective detection of abundant proteins in the fluid matrix. Because lysozyme is an abundant protein in these body fluids (e.g., around 21.4 and 7 μg/mL of lysozyme is found in human milk and saliva from healthy individuals, and more than 15 or even 100 μg/mL in patients suffering from leukemia, renal disease, and sarcoidosis), it may interfere with detections and quantification if it has strong interaction with GO. Therefore, one fundamental question that needs to be addressed before any development of GO based diagnostics method is how GO interacts with lysozyme. In this study, GO has demonstrated a strong interaction with lysozyme. This interaction is so strong that we are able to subsequently eliminate and separate lysozyme from aqueous solution onto the surface of GO. Furthermore, the strong electrostatic interaction also renders the selective adsorption of lysozyme on GO from a mixture of binary and ternary proteins. This selectivity is confirmed by sodium dodecyl sulfatepolyacrylamide gel electrophoresis (SDS-PAGE), fluorescence spectroscopy, and UV-vis absorption spectroscopy.
An area of significant
interest in the biomedical field is application
of graphene and graphene oxide (GO) for diagnostics and therapeutic
purposes. This is due to their unique chemical and physical properties,
such as one-atom-thick two-dimensional nanostructure, high surface
to volume ratio, good biocompatibility, and special electronic and
mechanical properties.[1−3] The past few years have witnessed great research
progress of graphene and GO in diagnostics applications, such as biosensing,[4−7] controlled drug delivery (including peptides, proteins, nucleic
acids and anticancer drugs),[8−10] cellular microscopic imaging,[11−13] and photothermal treatment for cancers and Alzheimer’s disease.[14−16] For such applications, graphene and GO have been explored since
2012 with an aim to create a system for analyte detection and quantification
in situ or in collected biological fluid sample environment, such
as milk, saliva, serum, and urine. Liu et al. were able to use GO
as a platform to enrich and detect tetracyclines from milk samples
by MALDI-TOF mass spectroscopy.[17] To analyze
crotonaldehyde rapidly and selectively in saliva samples, Sha et al.
developed a magnetic graphene composite as an adsorbent and a matrix.[18] Mannoor et al. recently reported a direct integration
of graphene nanosensors with biomaterials for biochemical detection
and wireless monitoring in human saliva.[19] To detect and monitor glucose level in human serum and urine samples,
Murugan et al. designed a graphene oxide-based electrochemical biosensor
with high sensitivity and good stability.[20]For any biosensor to be considered for diagnostics applications,
it needs to show selectivity, sensitivity, and specificity in regards
to the analyte being test, either in situ or in collected biological
fluids. In other words, the sensor or diagnostic method must robust
to the interference of most abundant proteins and other components
in the complex matrix of biological fluid. It is worth noticing that
human fluid samples of tears, milk, saliva, serum, and urine contain
fairly high amounts of lysozyme (also called 1,4-β-N-acetylmuramidase).
In this paper, we will investigate interactions between lysozyme and
graphene oxide (GO) to further explore the diagnostics and biosensing
applications of GO in biological fluid.Lysozyme is a small
monomeric globular enzymatic protein with 129
amino acids cross-linked by four disulfide bridges. It is part of
the innate immune system, hydrolyzing the peptidoglycan present in
the bacterial cell walls. It is extremely abundant in human tears,
with an average level of 1568 μg/mL (numbers may vary depending
on different samples and methods).[21] Milk
and saliva also contain high levels of lysozyme (around 21.4 and 7
μg/mL, respectively).[22,23] The concentrations
of lysozyme are lower in serum and urine samples (about 1.7 and 0.18
μg/mL, respectively) from normal human adults.[24,25] However, serum and urine lysozyme levels can be significantly elevated
to more than 15 or even 100 μg/mL in patients suffering from
leukemia, renal disease, and sarcoidosis.[26−28] Because of
the abundance of lysozyme and the detection of specific biomolecules
using GO from biological fluid samples as mentioned above, it is extremely
important and necessary to investigate the possible adsorption and
the interaction between lysozyme and GO. Besides the detection of
specific biomolecules, GO has also been used to adhere to and sense
leukemiaK562 cells.[29] Recently, Yan et
al. studied both in vitro and in vivo biocompatibility and cytotoxicity
of GO when it was intravitreally injected into eyes.[30] Their preliminary results suggested that GO had good intraocular
biocompatibility with little influence on cell morphology, cell viability,
membrane integrity, and apoptosis. Again, due to the presence of extremely
high concentration of lysozyme in leukemia cell media and eye tears,
one has to consider the possible interaction and adsorption between
lysozyme and GO during the process of detection.Compared with
other general nanomaterials, the extremely large
surface area on both sides, one-atom thickness (∼1 nm), abundant
functional groups, and good dispersion in water render GO as an ideal
solid substrate to load external species through both covalent and
noncovalent binding.[1,31] Studies have shown that some
protein molecules can be directly adsorbed on the surface of GO by
noncovalent binding without any additional cross-linking reagent.[31−33] However, the nature of the interaction has not been clearly defined.
Another issue is that in some practical applications, it is necessary
to release and separate the adsorbed species from the substrate. Unfortunately,
presently there is no such study showing the separation of immobilized
protein from the surface of GO. Moreover, it is important to investigate
the selectivity of adsorption on the surface of GO from a mixture
of proteins.In this study, we examined the interaction between
GO and lysozyme
and the possible applications of this interaction for use in separation
and selective adsorption. Compared with other proteins, such as bovineserum albumin and humanserum albumin, the huge fluorescence quenching
effect of GO on lysozyme indicates the presence of a much stronger
interaction between GO and lysozyme. This interaction and the assembled
structure between GO and lysozyme were further characterized using
fluorescence quenching, zeta potential, dynamic light scattering,
and atomic force microscopy. The nature of the interaction was determined
to be mainly an electrostatic interaction. This interaction was so
strong that we were able to subsequently eliminate and separate lysozyme
from aqueous solution onto the surface of GO. After that, the adsorbed
lysozyme could be released from the surface of GO by adding pH 11.5
NaOH solution and then precipitating GO with CaCl2. Furthermore,
the strong electrostatic interaction also rendered the selective adsorption
of lysozyme on GO from binary and ternary proteins mixtures. This
selectivity was confirmed by sodium dodecyl sulfatepolyacrylamide
gel electrophoresis (SDS-PAGE), fluorescence spectroscopy, and UV–vis
absorption spectroscopy.
Experimental Section
Materials
Single-layer graphene oxide
(GO) was bought from ACS Material LLC (Medford, MA). Hen egg white
lysozyme (LYZ), bovineserum albumin (BSA), and humanserum albumin
(HSA) were obtained from MP Biomedicals (Solon, OH). Ovalbumin (OVA)
and other inorganic salts used in experiments were purchased from
Sigma (St. Louis, MO). In gel electrophoresis experiment, Precision
Plus Protein All Blue Standards were used as the standard protein
maker (Bio-Rad, CA). All chemicals were used without any further purification.
The deionized water used in the experiments was obtained from a Modulab
2020 Water purification system. The resistivity of the deionized water
was 18 MΩ cm with pH about 5.6 at room temperature.
Methods and Characterization
GO Dispersion
One mg/mL GO aqueous dispersion was obtained
by adding 10 mL pure water to 10 mg GO, followed by sonication for
1 h in a cold water bath (Branson, model 1510, Danbury, CT). The as-prepared
GO dispersion was diluted to certain concentrations either with water
or 0.1 M phosphate buffer (pH 7) according to the needs of experiment.
Fluorescence Quenching
For each individual protein
(i.e., lysozyme, BSA, HSA, and ovalbumin), 1 mL of 2 × 10–6 M aqueous protein solution was mixed with a certain
volume of water (from 1 to 0 mL, in 0.25 mL decrements) and 20 μg/mL
GO (from 0 to 1 mL, in 0.25 mL increments). The total volume of mixture
solution (GO/protein) was fixed at 2 mL in each case. Therefore, the
concentration of protein was fixed at 1 × 10–6 M, with increment of 2.5 μg/mL GO from 0 to 10 μg/mL.
All fluorescence spectra were recorded on a Fluorolog-3 spectrofluorimeter
(Horiba Scientific, Edison, NJ) using a 1 cm × 0.2 cm quartz
cell. The excitation wavelength was carried out at 290 nm with excitation
slit width at 5 nm. The emission was set from 305 to 550 nm with emission
slit width at 5 nm. The same experiments were carried out using NaOH
aqueous solution at pH 10 and 12 throughout the procedures. Due to
the fact that GO had absorption in the range of 270–350 nm,
which overlapped with the excitation and emission of the proteins,
the fluorescence intensity after the addition of GO was corrected
with previous methods to remove “inner filter effect”.[34−36] After this correction, F0/F against the concentration of GO was plotted, where F0 and F were the maximum fluorescence
intensity in the absence and in the presence of GO, respectively.
Zeta Potential and Dynamic Light Scattering (DLS)
Solution-based
zeta potential and DLS analyses were characterized using a Zetasizer
Nano ZS System (Malvern Inc., UK) with irradiation from a standard
633 nm laser. The zeta potentials of 14.3 μg/mL (i.e., 1 ×
10–6 M) lysozyme, 5 μg/mL GO, and the mixture
GO/LYZ (5 μg/mL GO and 14.3 μg/mL LYZ) were recorded under
pH 5.6, 10, and 12. To study the zeta potential changes of the mixture
GO/LYZ at pH 5.6, GO was fixed at 5 μg/mL, whereas the concentration
of LYZ was varied from 0 to 100 μg/mL. The hydrodynamic diameters
of lysozyme, GO, and GO/LYZ at pH 5.6, 10, and 12 were carried out
by DLS using the same concentrations as the fluorescence quenching
study.
Atomic Force Microscopy (AFM)
AFM images were obtained
using tapping mode with an Agilent 5420 AFM instrument (Agilent, Santa
Clara, CA). The cantilever used in experiments had a resonance frequency
of 300–400 kHz with a typical force constant of 40 N/m. Six
microliters of 10 μg/mL GO, 1 × 10–6 M
lysozyme, or GO/LYZ was deposited on a freshly cleaved mica surface
and dried for 2 h in air before scanning. All images were taken at
a resolution of 512 × 512 pixels.
Adsorption and Desorption
In the adsorption experiment
(flowchart a to d in Figure 1), 1 mL of 0.4
mg/mL GO was added to 2 mL of 2 × 10–5 M (i.e.,
0.286 mg/mL) lysozymewater solution in a test tube. As a result,
the final concentration of lysozyme in the mixture was 0.143 mg/mL,
and 0.1 mg/mL for GO (this concentration ratio was chosen based on
the fluorescence quenching study). After mixing well on a vortex mixer,
1 mL of 1 M NaCl solution was added and then mixed throughout. Centrifugation
at 2500 rpm for 10 min yielded a clear supernatant in the upper layer
and dark brown precipitate at the bottom. Control experiments were
done under the same procedures by replacing 2 mL of GO with 2 mL of
water. The supernatant was pipetted to a 1 cm × 1 cm quartz cell
and scanned by a UV-2600 spectrophotometer (Shimadzu Inc., Japan).
Fluorescence spectra were obtained using the same methods as fluorescence
quenching above.
Figure 1
Flowchart of
adsorption and desorption study of lysozyme on GO.
To desorb lysozyme from the surface of GO,
we removed 3 mL of supernatant, added 2.5 mL of pH 11.5 NaOH, and
then sonicated for 30 s. After that, 0.5 mL of 0.1 M CaCl2 was added to precipitate GO from the solution. The precipitates
were removed by centrifugation, while lysozyme was left in the supernatant
(flowchart d, f, g, and h in Figure 1).Flowchart of
adsorption and desorption study of lysozyme on GO.
Selective Adsorption of Lysozyme
The selective adsorption
of lysozyme from a mixture of binary proteins (i.e., LYZ/BSA, LYZ/HSA,
and LYZ/OVA) and ternary proteins (i.e., LYZ/OVA/BSA and LYZ/OVA/HSA)
was carried out using the same procedures as the adsorption experiment
above (flowchart a–e in Figure 1). 0.1
M phosphate buffer (pH 7) was used as solvent throughout the experiment
instead of water. Each protein had a final concentration of 0.143
mg/mL in the mixture after GO and NaCl were added. The final concentration
of GO in the mixture was 0.1 mg/mL. Control experiments were carried
out without adding GO. To test the selective adsorption, the supernatant
in each case was characterized by SDS-PAGE, fluorescence emission,
and UV–vis absorption. Twelve percent SDS-PAGE gels were used
in the experiment. Forty microliters of each sample was loaded in
each well. The gels were run under 200 voltages for 40 min, followed
by staining with Imperial Protein Stain (Thermo Fisher Scientific
Inc., Rockford, IL) according to the manufacturer’s protocol.
Results and Discussion
Fluorescence Quenching of Lysozyme by GO
Characterizations
of the commercially available GO used in this study by UV–vis
absorption and atomic force microscopy (AFM) were consistent with
other studies and our previous results, confirming that GO was indeed
a single layer nanosheet.[15,36−39] In our previous study, we have demonstrated that GO can be a universal
fluorescent quencher for peptides and proteins containing tryptophan
or tyrosine.[36] Fluorescence quenching studies
of GO on proteins supported this assumption, such as humanserum albumin
(HSA), bovineserum albumin (BSA), amyloid beta-40, and human islet
amyloid polypeptide (hIAPP).[36] The Stern–Volmer
plot of 1 × 10–6 M BSA and HSA quenched by
GO at pH 5.6 is shown in Figure 2A. The values
of F0/F of BSA and HSA are both around 1.5 when the concentration
of GO is 10 μg/mL, where F0 and F are the fluorescence intensity at the maxima in the absence
and in the presence of GO, respectively. The quenching of 1 ×
10–6 M BSA or HSA by GO is also comparable with
that of 10–6 M tryptophan (∼1.4).[36] Surprisingly, compared with the quenching of
1 × 10–6 M BSA, HSA, and tryptophan by GO,
the emission intensity of 1 × 10–6 M lysozyme
dropped much more dramatically as the concentration of GO increased. F0/F of lysozyme increased to
26.5 in the presence of 10 μg/mL GO, as shown in red color in
Figure 2B. The fast reduction of fluorescence
intensity reveals the existence of a strong interaction between GO
and lysozyme.
Figure 2
Stern–Volmer plot of F0/F against concentration of GO as quencher. (A) F0/F of 1 × 10–6 M HSA and BSA at pH 5.6; (B) F0/F of 1 × 10–6 M lysozyme at pH 5.6,
10, and 12. F0 and F are
the fluorescence intensity at the maxima in the absence and in the
presence of GO, respectively.
Stern–Volmer plot of F0/F against concentration of GO as quencher. (A) F0/F of 1 × 10–6 M HSA and BSA at pH 5.6; (B) F0/F of 1 × 10–6 M lysozyme at pH 5.6,
10, and 12. F0 and F are
the fluorescence intensity at the maxima in the absence and in the
presence of GO, respectively.In order to determine the nature of interaction between GO
and
lysozyme, three pH values were used in the experiment (i.e., pH 5.6,
10, and 12). The pH value is extremely important for determining the
charge of lysozyme. If the pH is lower than its isoelectric point
(about 11),[40] lysozyme possesses more positive
charges. Thus, lysozyme is more positively charged at pH 5.6 than
at pH 10. Higher pH (i.e., pH 12 in this study) than the isoelectric
point renders lysozyme to have more negative charges. Because the
deprotonation of carboxyl and hydroxyl groups on its surface, GO is
always negatively charged under pH 5.6, 10, and 12.[41] If the interaction between GO and lysozyme is mainly an
electrostatic interaction, pH will play a central role on the quenching
effect. Indeed, as pH increases from 5.6 to 12, the quenching effect
reduces quickly, as shown in Figure 2B. At
10 μg/mL of GO, F0/F drops from 26.5 at pH 5.6 to 11.4 at pH 10. When pH reaches 12,
only a slight fluorescence quenching is observed, with the value of F0/F about 1.6. This small quenching
at pH 12 is probably due to the hydrophobic interaction between them.[42] From these observations, it can be stated that
the strong quenching of GO on lysozyme is predominantly due to the
electrostatic attraction between lysozyme and GO. Further evidence
for this assumption will be presented and discussed below. On the
contrary, BSA and HSA are both negatively charged in aqueous solution
at pH 5.6 as both isoelectric points are below 5.6. As a result, neither
BSA nor HSA favors electrostatic interaction with GO at pH 5.6. This
explains why the quenching of BSA or HSA by GO is more reduced than
that of lysozyme (Figure 2).
Zeta Potential
Study
Zeta potential was used to further
characterize the nature of the interaction between lysozyme and GO
(Table 1). Due to the protonation of its surface
functional groups, 5 μg/mL GO is negatively charged with −38.85
mV at pH 5.6. As pH increases, its zeta potential slightly shifts
to −40 mV at pH 10 and −41.25 mV at pH 12. These results
are consistent with other reported studies.[41,43] 1 × 10–6 M lysozyme is slightly positively
charged at pH 5.6 and 10. The values of zeta potential of lysozyme
may not be the true values probably due to the low concentration.
Usually, the concentration of protein used for zeta potential measurement
is required to be larger than 0.1 mg/mL. Therefore, the following
discussion will be based on the zeta potential changes of GO at 5
μg/mL and the mixture GO/LYZ (5 μg/mL GO and 14.3 μg/mL
LYZ). At pH 5.6, the zeta potential of GO is −38.85 mV, whereas
it is changed greatly to −9.05 mV in the mixture GO/LYZ (Table 1). However, at pH 10 and 12, the zeta potentials
of the mixtures are −35.67 and −39.1 mV, respectively.
Both are comparable to the zeta potential values of GO alone at the
corresponding pHs. These changes indicate that at pH 5.6 there is
a strong electrostatic interaction between GO and lysozyme, neutralizing
the surface charge of GO. To further verify this interaction, we performed
a titration experiment of zeta potential with GO concentration fixed
at 5 μg/mL (Figure 3). The zeta potential
value of GO/LYZ mixture shifts toward positive as the concentration
of lysozyme increases. The value reaches about 0 mV when lysozyme
is 20 μg/mL, corresponding to the maximum coverage of lysozyme
on the surface of GO.
Table 1
Zeta Potential Data
of GO (5 μg/mL),
Lysozyme (1 × 10–6 M, i.e., 14.3 μg/mL),
and GO/LYZ Mixture (5 μg/mL GO, 1 × 10–6 M Lysozyme) at pH 5.6, 10, and 12
zeta potential (mV)
pH 5.6
pH 10
pH 12
GO
–38.85
–40.00
–41.25
lysozyme
4.02
0.06
–8.02
GO/LYZ
–9.05
–35.67
–39.10
Figure 3
Zeta potential of GO/LYZ aqueous solution against
LYZ concentration.
The concentration of GO was fixed at 5 μg/mL.
Zeta potential of GO/LYZ aqueous solution against
LYZ concentration.
The concentration of GO was fixed at 5 μg/mL.
Dynamic Light Scattering (DLS) Study
Because of the
strong electrostatic interaction and unique large surface area of
both sides of GO, lysozyme can be adsorbed onto its surfaces, increasing
the size of the assemblies. Dynamic light scattering (DLS) is an analytical
technique widely used to characterize the size in terms of hydrodynamic
diameter of nanoparticles or colloids in aqueous solution.[44,45] The exact size of GO may vary depending on the method and procedure
of processing. As shown in Figure 4A, the peak
distributions (≥92%) of the hydrodynamic diameters of GO are
around 200 (± 50) nm with limited influence from the pHs studied
(i.e., pH 5.6, 10, and 12) and the concentrations (from 0 to 10 μg/mL).
This indicates that GO does not flocculate or aggregate under these
pHs and concentrations. These observations are consistent with other
previous studies of GO by DLS.[46,47] In our experiments,
the size distribution of 1 × 10–6 M lysozyme
at pH 5.6, 10, and 12 are below the limitation of the DLS system.
Figure 4
Hydrodynamic
diameter of (A) GO dispersion and (B) GO/LYZ mixture
at pH 5.6, 10, and 12.
However, in the mixture of GO/LYZ (lysozyme was always fixed at 1
× 10–6 M in DLS experiments), the size distribution
dramatically depends on the pH and the concentration of GO, as illustrated
in Figure 4B. First, the hydrodynamic diameter
of the mixture decreases as the pH increases from 5.6 to 12 at each
corresponding concentration of GO. The reduction in size at higher
pH indicates that the interaction between GO and lysozyme is weaker
at higher pH. Second, the size of GO/LYZ mixture at pH 12 is about
the same as the pure GO, indicating that no assembly is formed between
GO and lysozyme at pH 12. This should be due to the electrostatic
repulsion between the negatively charged lysozyme and negatively charged
GO at pH 12. These observations also provide further support to the
nature of the interaction as we discussed above. Third, it is worth
noticing that the hydrodynamic diameter of the mixture decreases as
the concentration of GO increases in both cases of pH 5.6 and 10,
as shown in Figure 4B. This trend of decrease
in diameter could be due to the diminishing thickness of protein “corona”
formed on the surface of GO as a “core” when the concentration
of GO increases.[48,49] At lower concentrations of GO
at pH 5.6, i.e., 2.5 μg/mL, as the total amount of lysozyme
is fixed at a constant in all cases, the amount of lysozyme absorbed
per unit surface area of GO will be larger than that at higher concentrations
of GO. This means that the thickness of the adsorbed lysozyme “corona”
will be larger at lower concentrations of GO. On the contrary, when
more GO is present in the solution, fewer amounts of lysozyme are
adsorbed on each piece of GO, decreasing the hydrodynamic diameter.Hydrodynamic
diameter of (A) GO dispersion and (B) GO/LYZ mixture
at pH 5.6, 10, and 12.
Atomic Force Microscopy (AFM) Study
AFM was used to
directly visualize morphologies on a freshly cleaved mica surface
after the solvent was evaporated. We only obtained AFM images at pH
5.6, because hydroxyl ions at pH 10 and 12 would be neutralized by
carbon dioxide from the air while drying. As shown in Figure 5A, the height of GO nanosheets is around 1 nm after
6 μL of 10 μg/mL GO was deposited and dried on mica surface.
The uniform height demonstrates that GO nanosheets do not flocculate
or aggregate while drying. The AFM image of 1 × 10–6 M lysozyme after drying shows very tiny spots with height about
1 nm (Figure 5B). The observations here are
similar to previous AFM studies of lysozyme adsorption on mica.[50,51] However, the AFM image of GO/LYZ mixture (10 μg/mL GO and
1 × 10–6 M lysozyme) shows totally different
images compared with GO or lysozyme alone (Figure 5C). No single nanosheet of GO is observed. Pieces of GO seem
to be packed together tightly on each other with uneven height from
3.5 nm to more than 20 nm. These observations provide direct proof
that lysozyme is adsorbed on the surface of GO.
Figure 5
AFM images of (A) GO,
(B) lysozyme, and (C) the mixture of GO/LYZ
after ∼6 μL of corresponding solution was deposited and
dried on the surface of mica. The profiles are shown in white curves.
The scale bar at the bottom right in each figure is 1 μm.
AFM images of (A) GO,
(B) lysozyme, and (C) the mixture of GO/LYZ
after ∼6 μL of corresponding solution was deposited and
dried on the surface of mica. The profiles are shown in white curves.
The scale bar at the bottom right in each figure is 1 μm.We have so far demonstrated that
the strong interaction between
GO and lysozyme is electrostatic interaction using the methods above,
but it is worth noticing that some weak interactions may also exist,
such as π–π interaction, hydrophobic interaction,
and hydrogen bonding. The π–π interaction can exist
between the aromatic rings of GO and the indole structure of tryptophan
residues. These weak interactions explain the slight fluorescence
quenching of lysozyme by GO at pH 12 in Figure 2B.
Adsorption and Desorption of Lysozyme on GO
We have
demonstrated that the interaction between GO and lysozyme is mainly
an electrostatic interaction. Indeed, this interaction was so strong
that we were able to subsequently remove and separate lysozyme from
aqueous solution by GO experimentally. As discussed above, more than
96% of the fluorescent emission of 1 × 10–6 M (14.3 μg/mL) lysozyme was quenched by 10 μg/mL GO.
In order to clearly observe the adsorption effect of lysozyme on GO
in experiments, 10-fold concentrations (i.e., 0.143 mg/mL lysozyme
and 0.1 mg/mL GO) were used. The procedures are shown in Figure 1 (Step a to e). Once GO was added into lysozyme
solutions, larger assemblies between lysozyme and GO were formed as
suspension. To precipitate the assemblies, 1 M NaCl was added into
the mixture of GO/LYZ. Immediately, one could observe precipitate
formation. The ionic strength of NaCl further neutralized the surface
charge and promoted the precipitate formation. After 5 min of agglomeration,
the mixture was centrifuged at 2500 rpm for 10 min. At the bottom
of centrifuge tube, dark brown precipitate was formed, whereas the
upper layer solution was totally clear. The supernatant solution was
used for fluorescence spectroscopy, UV–vis absorption, and
SDS-PAGE (sodium dodecyl sulfatepolyacrylamide gel electrophoresis).
With the same excitation conditions, the supernatant solution was
slightly fluorescent at 358 nm, about 2.8% of the fluorescence intensity
of 0.143 mg/mL under the same condition without GO, as shown in Figure 6A. This result suggested that GO adsorbed almost
all lysozyme on its surface. To further support this assumption, we
compared UV–vis absorption of the supernatant solution with
the control experiments. It also confirmed this assumption, because
the absorption around 280 nm was almost completely disappeared after
the adsorption of GO (Figure 6B). SDS-PAGE
also showed that the band of lysozyme was completely removed after
the adsorption of GO (Figure 7A, Lane 1 as
control and Lane 2 after the adsorption of GO). Therefore, GO could
be an excellent adsorbent material to remove lysozyme from its aqueous
solution.
Figure 6
(A) Fluorescence spectra of lysozyme before and after adsorption
by GO; (B) UV–vis adsorption spectra of lysozyme before and
after adsorption by GO; (C) UV–vis adsorption of lysozyme of
original solution and after being released from GO. It is worth noticing
that CaCl2 changes the molar absorptivity of lysozyme.
This explains the absorption difference of lysozyme in B and C.
Figure 7
SDS-PAGE of protein marker (Lane M), LYZ
control (Lane 1), LYZ
adsorbed by GO (Lane 2), BSA control (Lane 3), BSA adsorbed by GO
(Lane 4), LYZ/BSA control (Lane 5), LYZ/BSA adsorbed by GO (Lane 6),
OVA control (Lane 7), OVA adsorbed by GO (Lane 8), LYZ/OVA control
(Lane 9), LYZ/OVA adsorbed by GO (Lane 10), HSA control (Lane 11),
HSA adsorbed by GO (Lane 12), LYZ/HSA control (Lane 13), and LYZ/HSA
adsorbed by GO (Lane 14). The concentration of each protein (i.e.,
LYZ, BSA, OVA, and HSA) was 0.143 mg/mL, whereas the final concentration
of GO was 0.1 mg/mL, if present.
(A) Fluorescence spectra of lysozyme before and after adsorption
by GO; (B) UV–vis adsorption spectra of lysozyme before and
after adsorption by GO; (C) UV–vis adsorption of lysozyme of
original solution and after being released from GO. It is worth noticing
that CaCl2 changes the molar absorptivity of lysozyme.
This explains the absorption difference of lysozyme in B and C.It is sometimes necessary in practice
to separate the adsorbed
protein from the substrate. In this case of lysozyme, we were able
to release lysozyme from the surface of GO by chemical approach, as
shown in Figure 1 (Step d, f, g, and h). After
centrifugation, remove 3 mL of the supernatant solution and add 2.5
mL of pH 11.5 NaOH to disperse the precipitates again. As we discussed
above, the interaction between GO and lysozyme at basic pH should
be very weak, disassembling lysozyme from the GO surface. Indeed,
after sonication, a golden color solution was obtained again. To further
separate lysozyme and GO, 0.5 mL of 0.1 M CaCl2 solution
was added to precipitate GO. As Ca2+ formed precipitates
with GO with very large solubility product constant, lysozyme was
left in the supernatant. On the basis of the UV–vis absorption
spectrum of the supernatant, about 54% lysozyme was released (Figure 6C).
Selective Adsorption of Lysozyme
If the interaction
between lysozyme and GO is strong enough, one will expect to use this
interaction to selectively adsorb lysozyme by GO from a mixture of
proteins. It is worth noticing that this selectivity is based on electrostatic
interaction. If two proteins are positively charged and have similar
isoelectric points (pI), both can be adsorbed on the surface of GO
without much selectivity. Herein, we studied this application in 0.1
M phosphate buffer at pH 7 in the mixture of lysozyme (LYZ, pI 11,
14.3 kDa), bovineserum albumin (BSA, pI 5.3, 68 kDa), human serum
albumin (HSA, pI 4.7, 66.5 kDa), and ovalbumin (OVA, pI 4.9, 43 kDa),
following the same procedures of adsorption as shown in Figure 1 (Step a–e). In a binary protein mixture
(i.e., LYZ/BSA, LYZ/HSA, or LYZ/OVA), GO and NaCl solutions were added
to form precipitates. After centrifugation, the supernatant was characterized
by SDS-PAGE (Figure 7), florescence emission,
and UV–vis absorption spectra.SDS-PAGE of protein marker (Lane M), LYZ
control (Lane 1), LYZ
adsorbed by GO (Lane 2), BSA control (Lane 3), BSA adsorbed by GO
(Lane 4), LYZ/BSA control (Lane 5), LYZ/BSA adsorbed by GO (Lane 6),
OVA control (Lane 7), OVA adsorbed by GO (Lane 8), LYZ/OVA control
(Lane 9), LYZ/OVA adsorbed by GO (Lane 10), HSA control (Lane 11),
HSA adsorbed by GO (Lane 12), LYZ/HSA control (Lane 13), and LYZ/HSA
adsorbed by GO (Lane 14). The concentration of each protein (i.e.,
LYZ, BSA, OVA, and HSA) was 0.143 mg/mL, whereas the final concentration
of GO was 0.1 mg/mL, if present.Proteins with different molecular weights could be easily
separated
by SDS-PAGE; therefore, this technique was able to provide visual
evidence of selective adsorption of GO. Compared with its band at
14.3 kDa as a control experiment (Lane 1 in Figure 7), lysozyme was completely adsorbed when GO was present (Lane
2 in Figure 7). On the contrary, BSA (Lane
4) was slightly adsorbed by GO in comparison with its control experiment
without GO (Lane 3). In the binary protein mixture of LYZ/BSA, bands
of both proteins were clearly seen (Lane 5). After the adsorption
by GO (Lane 6), the band of LYZ was barely seen while the band of
BSA was as clear as before adsorption. The disappearance of lysozyme
band suggested that it was adsorbed and coprecipitated by GO. Similar
observations were also found for LYZ/OVA and LYZ/HSA systems in experiments,
as shown in Figure 7.To further support
the assumption that GO was able to selectively
adsorb lysozyme from a mixture of binary proteins system, fluorescence
emission and UV–vis absorption were used to characterize the
supernatant after centrifugation, as shown in Figure 8. The obtained fluorescence (Figure 8A, C, and E) and UV–vis absorption (Figure 8B, D, and F) spectra of the mixture after adsorption by GO
(the green curves) were very similar to those of the control experiments
using a single protein of BSA, HSA, and OVA (the black curves). These
observations again confirmed that lysozyme was selectively adsorbed
and coprecipitated by GO, leaving other proteins (i.e., BSA, HSA,
and OVA) in the solution.
Figure 8
Fluorescence (the first column, i.e., A, C,
and E) and UV–vis
(the second column, i.e., B, D, and F) absorption spectra of binary
protein mixtures before and after adsorption by GO: (A, B) BSA/LYZ;
(C, D) HSA/LYZ; (E, F) OVA/LYZ.
Fluorescence (the first column, i.e., A, C,
and E) and UV–vis
(the second column, i.e., B, D, and F) absorption spectra of binary
protein mixtures before and after adsorption by GO: (A, B) BSA/LYZ;
(C, D) HSA/LYZ; (E, F) OVA/LYZ.In a ternary mixture of proteins, i.e. LYZ/OVA/HSA and LYZ/OVA/BSA
(each protein was 0.143 mg/mL), a final concentration of GO at 0.1
mg/mL was also able to selectively adsorb lysozyme from the mixture,
as shown by the results of SDS-PAGE (Figure 9). Compared with the corresponding control experiment, lysozyme in
the ternary mixture of proteins was clearly adsorbed by GO, because
the band of lysozyme was barely seen.
Figure 9
SDS-PAGE of protein marker (Lane M), LYZ/OVA/HSA
control (Lane
1), LYZ/OVA/HSA adsorbed by GO (Lane 2), LYZ/OVA/BSA control (Lane
3), LYZ/OVA/BSA adsorbed by GO (Lane 4). The concentration of each
protein (i.e., LYZ, BSA, OVA, and HSA) was 0.143 mg/mL. The final
concentration of GO was 0.1 mg/mL, if present.
SDS-PAGE of protein marker (Lane M), LYZ/OVA/HSA
control (Lane
1), LYZ/OVA/HSA adsorbed by GO (Lane 2), LYZ/OVA/BSA control (Lane
3), LYZ/OVA/BSA adsorbed by GO (Lane 4). The concentration of each
protein (i.e., LYZ, BSA, OVA, and HSA) was 0.143 mg/mL. The final
concentration of GO was 0.1 mg/mL, if present.
Conclusion
Graphene oxide (GO) is recently emerging
as a promising nanomaterial
with potential applications to detect analytes from biological fluid
samples, such as milk, saliva, serum, and urine.[17−20] Because of the abundance of lysozyme
present in such biological fluid samples, it is extremely important
and necessary to investigate the possible interaction and adsorption
between lysozyme and GO. In this study, we investigated the strong
interaction between GO and lysozyme by fluorescence quenching, zeta
potential, dynamic light scattering, and atomic force microscopy.
The nature of the interaction was determined to be predominantly an
electrostatic interaction. This interaction was so strong that we
were able to subsequently eliminate and separate lysozyme from aqueous
solution by simply mixing with GO. The adsorbed lysozyme could be
released from the surface of GO by adding NaOH solution and then precipitating
GO with CaCl2. More importantly, the strong electrostatic
interaction also rendered the selective adsorption of lysozyme on
GO from mixtures of binary proteins and ternary proteins, which was
confirmed by fluorescence spectroscopy, UV–vis absorption spectroscopy,
and sodium dodecyl sulfatepolyacrylamide gel electrophoresis.As we demonstrate in this study, lysozyme interacts strongly with
the surfaces of GO and can be selectively adsorbed and separated via
an electrostatic interaction. When the material of GO is explored
to detect or sense a specific biomolecule from biological fluid samples,
one has to consider the presence of lysozyme and the strong interaction
between it and GO.
Authors: Tommy Cedervall; Iseult Lynch; Stina Lindman; Tord Berggård; Eva Thulin; Hanna Nilsson; Kenneth A Dawson; Sara Linse Journal: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A Date: 2007-01-31 Impact factor: 11.205