Here we investigate a novel signal-on electrochemical DNA sensor based on the use of a clamp-like DNA probe that binds a complementary target sequence through two distinct and sequential events, which lead to the formation of a triplex DNA structure. We demonstrate that this target-binding mechanism can improve both the affinity and specificity of recognition as opposed to classic probes solely based on Watson-Crick recognition. By using electrochemical signaling to report the conformational change, we demonstrate a signal-on E-DNA sensor with up to 400% signal gain upon target binding. Moreover, we were able to detect with nanomolar affinity a perfectly matched target as short as 10 bases (K(D) = 0.39 nM). Finally, thanks to the molecular "double-check" provided by the concomitant Watson-Crick and Hoogsteen base pairings involved in target recognition, our sensor provides excellent discrimination efficiency toward a single-base mismatched target.
Here we investigate a novel signal-on electrochemical DNA sensor based on the use of a clamp-like DNA probe that binds a complementary target sequence through two distinct and sequential events, which lead to the formation of a triplex DNA structure. We demonstrate that this target-binding mechanism can improve both the affinity and specificity of recognition as opposed to classic probes solely based on Watson-Crick recognition. By using electrochemical signaling to report the conformational change, we demonstrate a signal-on E-DNA sensor with up to 400% signal gain upon target binding. Moreover, we were able to detect with nanomolar affinity a perfectly matched target as short as 10 bases (K(D) = 0.39 nM). Finally, thanks to the molecular "double-check" provided by the concomitant Watson-Crick and Hoogsteen base pairings involved in target recognition, our sensor provides excellent discrimination efficiency toward a single-base mismatched target.
Biomolecular receptors such
as proteins or nucleic acids that shift between two or more conformations
upon binding to a specific target can be used to build robust, sensitive,
and specific sensors.[1,2] Because signal transduction is
linked to the conformational change that occurs only upon binding,
these receptors allow for detection of a specific target even within
the incredibly complex media that exist within biological system.
To create robust, rapid sensors that similarly link specificity and
sensitivity, a number of structure-switching optical and electrochemical
sensors have been reported in recent years for applications in the
areas of diagnostics and imaging, and several different strategies
have been employed in the design of binding-induced molecular switches.[1−3]Among the various structure-switching strategies employed
by naturally
occurring receptors, the use of a clamp-like mechanism where the receptor
comprises two recognition elements that both bind and recognize the
target, remains one of the most effective.[4] Inspired by this mechanism, we have recently explored the thermodynamics
by which a DNA clamp-like molecular receptor that recognizes a specific
complementary oligonucleotide target through both Watson–Crick
and triplex-forming Hoogsteen interactions can improve both the affinity
and specificity of recognition.[4]In the present work, we fully realize and exploit the advantages
of such molecular “double-check” mechanism, by adapting
this clamp-like sensing strategy to a DNA-based electrochemical biosensor
(hereafter named E-DNA). The classic E-DNA sensor, first proposed
by Plaxco et al. in 2003,[5] comprises a
redox-labeled stem-loop or linear DNA probe immobilized on the surface
of a gold electrode that, upon hybridization with its complementary
target, leads to a rigid, duplex complex that brings the redox label
a distance away from the electrode surface and thus suppresses the
observed electrochemical signal (signal-off sensor).[5] Such a strategy provides impressive advantages that include
the reagentless nature of the platform, the adaptability to point-of-care
approaches, and the possibility to use it with complex real samples.[5−7] Here we have replaced the duplex-forming DNA probe (linear or stem-loop)
utilized in the classic E-DNA sensors with a clamp-switch DNA probe,
and we have developed an E-DNA sensor that while maintaining the above
attributes will also provide a signal increase upon target binding
(signal-on sensor) and, more importantly, a significantly improved
affinity and specificity relative to the original duplex-based E-DNA
sensors.[5−7]
Experimental Section
Materials
Reagent-grade
chemicals, including (top-oligo(ethylene
glycol), HS–(CH2)11–OEG6–OH) TOEG6 (from Prochimia, Poland), 6-mercapto-1-hexanol,
tris[hydroxymethyl]aminomethane hydrochloride, tris(2-carboxyethyl)
phosphine hydrochloride, sulfuric acid, potassium phosphate monobasic,
dibasic, ethanol, and sodium chloride (all from Sigma-Aldrich, St.
Louis, Missouri, USA) were used without further purification. The clamp-switch
and the linear probe were obtained from Biosearch Technologies (Novato,
USA) and employed without further purification. The clamp-switch probe
sequence is as follows:5′-HS-(CH2)6-TATTTTCTTTTCCCCCCAGTATTATTCCCCCTTTTCTTTTGT-MB-3′.
The probe is modified at the 5′-end with a thiohexyl moiety
and at the 3′-end with a methylene blue (MB) redox label. The
linear probe sequence is as follows: 5′-HS-(CH2)6-CGTCAATCTTCTATTTCTCCACACTGCT-MB-3′.
The probe is modified at the 5′-end with a thiohexylmoiety
and at the 3′-end with a MB redox label.
Target DNA
Sequences
For the clamp-switch probe, we
have employed the following target DNA sequences of varying lengths, all of which were obtained via commercial synthesis
(Sigma-Aldrich):The target sequences for the linear
probe were as follows:Linear PM-13 (13-base target,
5′-GGAGAAATAGAAG-3′)
and linear MM-13 (13-base mismatch target, 5′-GGACAAATAGAAG-3′).In the above sequences
the underlined bases identify the mismatched
bases.
Sensor Fabrication
The sensors were fabricated using
standard approaches.[8] Briefly, E-DNA sensors
were fabricated on rod gold disk electrodes (3.0 mm diameter, BAS,
West Lafayette, IN, USA). The disk electrodes were prepared by polishing
with diamond and alumina (BAS), followed by sonication in water, and
electrochemical cleaning (a series of oxidation and reduction cycles
in 0.5 M H2SO4, 0.01 M KCl/0.1 M H2SO4, and 0.05 M H2SO4). Effective
electrode areas were determined from the charge associated with the
gold oxide reduction peak obtained after the cleaning process. The
thiol-containing oligonucleotides we have employed are supplied as
a mixed disulfide with 6-mercapto-1-hexanol in order to minimize the
risk of oxidation. Thus, the first step in sensor fabrication is the
reduction of the probe DNA (100 μM) for 1 h in a solution of
0.4 mM tris(2-carboxyethyl)phosphine hydrochloride (TCEP) in 100 mM
NaCl/10 mM potassium phosphate pH 7. The so-reduced relevant probe
DNA was immobilized onto the freshly cleaned electrodes by incubating
for 5 min in a solution of 1 M NaCl/10 mM potassium phosphate buffer,
pH 7. Different probe densities were obtained by controlling the concentration
of probe DNA employed during the fabrication process ranging from
10 nM to 500 nM. Following probe immobilization, the electrode surface
was rinsed with deionized water, passivated with 1 mM 6-mercaptohexanol
in 1 M NaCl/10 mM potassium phosphate buffer, pH 7, overnight, and
rinsed with deionized water before measurement.
Electrochemical
Measurements
The sensors produced as
described above were tested at room temperature using an Autolab potentiostat
(EcoChemie, Utrecht, The Netherlands). Square wave voltammetry (SWV)
was recorded from −0.1 V to −0.45 V versus an external
Ag/AgCl reference electrode and a platinum counter electrode and amplitude
of 25 mV with a frequency of 100 Hz (unless otherwise states). The
sensors were first allowed to equilibrate for about 20 min in a buffer
solution (10 mM tris[hydroxymethyl]aminomethane hydrochloride
(TRIS) + 100 mM NaCl + 10
mM MgCl2). Once the sensor’s signal was
stable, the desired target concentration was added to the solution,
and the resulting signal decrease or increase was evaluated in real
time by interrogating the electrode at regular intervals.
Calculation
of Probe Surface Density
Probe surface
density (i.e., the number of electroactive probe DNA moles per unit
area of the electrode surface, Ntot) was
determined using a previously established relationship with ACV peak
current[9a] described in eq 1:where Iavg (E0) is the average AC peak current in a voltammogram, n is the number of electrons transferred per redox event
(with our MB label n = 2), F is
the Faraday current, R is the universal gas constant, T is the temperature, Eac is
the amplitude, and f is the frequency of the applied
AC voltage perturbation. Perfect transfer efficiency was assumed (i.e.,
that all of the redox moieties participate in electron transfer);
errors in this assumption would lead us to underestimate probe density.
Experimentally, four frequency values were used (5, 10, 50, and 100
Hz), and the average current peak was calculated so as to give the
value of Ntot.[9b,9c]
AFM Methods
Solutions
For all atomic force microscopy
(AFM) experiments,
DNA stocks preparation and monolayer were formed in a phosphate buffer
solution (PBS, 10 mM phosphate, 1 M NaCl, 1 mM MgCl2, pH
7 in Milli-Q water (resistivity ≥18.2 MΩ·cm). DNA
oligos (see the sequences above) were purchased from IDT, suspended
in PBS to a final concentration of 100 μM, and stored at −20
°C. AFM imaging and target incubation were carried out in a TRIS
solution (10 mM TRIS, 100 mM NaCl, 10 mM MgCl2), prepared
with Milli-Q water, and adjusted to pH values of 5, 6, or 8. All solutions
were filtered with a sterile 0.2 μm syringe filter (VWR, Italy).
Sample Preparation
Ultraflat gold surfaces were prepared
following a modified procedure from ref (10). Briefly, a 100 nm thick film of gold was electron-beam
deposited over a freshly cleaved mica surface sheet (Mica, New York,
clear ruby muscovite). Gold-on-mica chips of 5 × 5 nm2 were glued on slightly smaller silicon chips by using an epoxy resist
(SU-8 100, MicroChem, MA, U.S.A.), and cured at 130 °C for at
least 24 h. The obtained samples were stored in ambient conditions
without any further precaution. Self-assembled monolayers were allowed
to form over freshly cleaved gold surfaces in a solution containing
30 nM ssDNA probe in PBS buffer for 5 min, followed by 5 min-long
washing in fresh PBS. DNA-modified surfaces were backfilled with the
TOEG6 monolayer for gold-surface stabilization with a 15 min incubation
in a 100 μM TOEG6 solution in PBS/EtOH = 3:1, followed by washing
in PBS. Samples were fixed in the AFM liquid cell with a cyclic olefin
copolymer (TOPAS, TOPAS Advanced Polymers GmbH, Germany) on a glass
support.
AFM Analysis
All AFM measurements
were performed in
liquid on an Asylum Research MFP-3D Stand-Alone AFM. Monolayer heights
were measured relative to an internal reference provided by TOEG6
patches generated within the DNA monolayer by nanografting.[11] Several 2 × 2 μm2 squared
features were produced in a 10 μM TOEG6 solution in PBS buffer
with relatively stiff cantilevers (NSC36/noAl by MikroMasch, nominal
spring constant, k = 1.0 N/m) by applying 100–150
nN. The action of the loading tip lets surface-bound DNA molecules
be exchanged with TOEG6 molecules present in solution. Nanostructures
were AFM imaged in AC-Mode at low forces, at all experimental stages,
and with the same cantilever that was utilized for nanografting.The step-height of the DNA monolayer with respect to each TOEG6 patch
was obtained from six different height profiles, each being the average
of five adjacent line profiles. Absolute DNA height values were derived
from the measured values by adding the average height of the TOEG6
monolayer (3.1 nm) and subtracting the average length of the thiol
linker (1 nm):[12]Habs = Hrel + HTOEG – Hlinker = Hrel + 2.1 nm.
Results
The signaling
element we have used for our signal-on E-DNA sensor
is a redox reporter (MB) conjugated at the 3′ end of our DNA-based
clamp-switch probe. The probe is also labeled at the 5′ end
with a thiol group to support stable attachment to an interrogating
gold electrode. Our clamp-switch probe is composed of two recognition
elements separated by an unstructured, 10-base loop (Figure 1a, black portion). The first recognition element,
a 15-base polypyrimidine portion (Figure 1a,
green portion), binds the target, a complementary polypurine sequence,
via Watson–Crick base pairing. The second recognition element,
a polypyrimidine sequence (Figure 1a, red portion),
then binds the so-formed duplex via sequence-specific Hoogsteen base
pairing.[4,13] The formation of this triplex structure
occurs through a conformational switch that leads to its closure (Figure 1a).[4,14−21] In the absence of the oligonucleotide sequence complementary to
the first recognition element, the probe, in its linear conformation,
is flexible enough that the attached methylene blue maintains its
mechanical freedom to remain, on average, very distant from the electrode
surface, and thus exchanges electrons at a relatively low rate. Upon
the addition of its specific DNA target, the E-DNA clamp probe folds
into a triplex structure that confines the methylene blue near the
electrode surface, thus increasing the electron transfer rate and the observed
electrochemical voltammetric response (signal-on behavior) (Figure 1b).
Figure 1
(a)Clamp-switch E-DNA sensor is composed of a DNA probe
modified
at its 3′-end with a methylene blue redox tag and at its
5′-end with a thiohexyl moiety for attachment on a gold
electrode. The probe is designed with a first recognition element,
a 15-base polypyrimidine portion (green portion) that can recognize
a complementary target sequence via Watson–Crick base pairing.
The second recognition element, a polypyrimidine sequence (red portion)
can then fold back to form a triplex structure through Hoogsteen base
pairing.[4,13] This brings the redox label into close proximity
with the electrode surface, increasing electron transfer efficiency
and resulting in an increase in the observed current (b).
(a)Clamp-switch E-DNA sensor is composed of a DNA probe
modified
at its 3′-end with a methylene blue redox tag and at its
5′-end with a thiohexyl moiety for attachment on a gold
electrode. The probe is designed with a first recognition element,
a 15-base polypyrimidine portion (green portion) that can recognize
a complementary target sequence via Watson–Crick base pairing.
The second recognition element, a polypyrimidine sequence (red portion)
can then fold back to form a triplex structure through Hoogsteen base
pairing.[4,13] This brings the redox label into close proximity
with the electrode surface, increasing electron transfer efficiency
and resulting in an increase in the observed current (b).The signaling behavior of our E-DNA clamp-switch
is directly linked
to the closure of the clamp, which brings the methylene blue closer
to the electrode surface and thus increases the electron transfer rate of
the methylene blue redox reaction. To demonstrate this, we have measured
the apparent electron transfer rates using SWV. The electron transfer
rate is directly proportional to the “critical frequency”,
which is the maximum frequency-corrected peak current in the ip/f versus f curve, where ip is the net peak current
and f is the SWV frequency.[22] Our E-DNA clamp-switch leads to a significant decrease in the critical
frequency upon target binding, demonstrating a much faster electron
transfer rate (Figure 2a). Crucially, this
difference in electron transfer rate allows us to optimize measurement
frequency to maximize signal gain.
Figure 2
Change in electron transfer rate
upon target binding
provides a mechanism for tuning the signal gain of the E-DNA clamp-switch
probe. Following target binding, the clamp-switch probe folds back
to form a triplex structure, and the methylene blue reporter is held
in close proximity to the electrode surface, providing faster electron
transfer than the unbound probe, which has more freedom to occupy
positions distant from the electrode surface. (a) The ratio of the
measured peak current to SWV frequency (ip/f) as a function of frequency provides a way to
measure the apparent electron transfer rate of the methylene blue
reporter.[22] The bound E-DNA triplex (black)
has a critical frequency around 100 Hz, for an apparent electron transfer
rate of ∼85 s–1.The unbound free probe (blue)
has a critical frequency ≤10 Hz, showing much slower electron
transfer. (b) By varying the SWV frequency used to measure the probe,
the ratio of signal between bound and unbound states is variable,
providing highly tunable signaling characteristics. For most measurement
frequencies, the signal current increases upon target binding with
signal gain of up to 400% for measured frequencies. Only when the
frequency falls below 25 Hz, a time scale in which the rapid electron
transfer of the bound state rapidly exhausts the signaling current,
the observed signal of the unbound probe is higher than that in the
presence of the target (signal-off behavior). For a matter of clarity
in these binding curves and in those in the following figures, error
bars have been depicted for only one point on each curve and represent
the average and standard deviations of measurements performed on at
least three independent sensors.
Change in electron transfer rate
upon target binding
provides a mechanism for tuning the signal gain of the E-DNA clamp-switch
probe. Following target binding, the clamp-switch probe folds back
to form a triplex structure, and the methylene blue reporter is held
in close proximity to the electrode surface, providing faster electron
transfer than the unbound probe, which has more freedom to occupy
positions distant from the electrode surface. (a) The ratio of the
measured peak current to SWV frequency (ip/f) as a function of frequency provides a way to
measure the apparent electron transfer rate of the methylene blue
reporter.[22] The bound E-DNA triplex (black)
has a critical frequency around 100 Hz, for an apparent electron transfer
rate of ∼85 s–1.The unbound free probe (blue)
has a critical frequency ≤10 Hz, showing much slower electron
transfer. (b) By varying the SWV frequency used to measure the probe,
the ratio of signal between bound and unbound states is variable,
providing highly tunable signaling characteristics. For most measurement
frequencies, the signal current increases upon target binding with
signal gain of up to 400% for measured frequencies. Only when the
frequency falls below 25 Hz, a time scale in which the rapid electron
transfer of the bound state rapidly exhausts the signaling current,
the observed signal of the unbound probe is higher than that in the
presence of the target (signal-off behavior). For a matter of clarity
in these binding curves and in those in the following figures, error
bars have been depicted for only one point on each curve and represent
the average and standard deviations of measurements performed on at
least three independent sensors.Despite the normally signal-on behavior of our clamp-switch
sensor,
we note that, similarly to other DNA-based architectures,[23] at very low SWV frequencies (below ∼25
Hz) the behavior of the sensor is inverted, and the target-free state
produces a signal higher than that of the target-bound clamp state
(Figure 2a). This is probably due to the fact
that at low-enough measurement time scales, the target-bound redox
reaction proceeds faster than the unbound redox reaction. This leads
to exhausting electron transfer from the faster reaction and, thus
allows the slower reaction to dominate current measurements.The behavior of the E-DNA clamp-switch sensor differs significantly
from that of a classic E-DNA sensor based on a Watson–Crick
linear hybridization probe.[23] For the latter,
the presence of the target leads to a reduction of the apparent electron
transfer rate (Figure S1) because target
binding produces a more rigid duplex DNA, in which the methylene blue
approaches the surface less frequently than in the target-free, linear
probe. In turn, a linear E-DNA sensor displays a signal-off behavior
at frequencies for which the E-DNA clamp-switch sensor leads, in contrast,
to signal increase upon target binding. The percentage signal increase
observed upon target binding varies with the SWV frequency used to
measure the probe. At high-enough frequencies (>50 Hz), the signal
current increases upon target binding with a signal gain that reached
a maximum of 400% at the highest frequencies we have investigated
(Figure 2b).The signal of the E-DNA
clamp-switch sensor strongly depends on
probe density (Figure 3). Specifically, the
signal-on behavior of the sensor is exclusively found at relatively
low densities. At higher densities (>10–11 mol/cm2), target binding leads to a signal decrease (signal-off).
Presumably, at higher densities, steric hindrance and/or electrostatic
effects inhibit the formation of a compact triplex structure and favor
the formation of the intermediate duplex-containing structure. We
also note that the signal-to-noise ratio maximizes at intermediate
probe densities, as it depends on absolute current intensity, which
intrinsically depends on probe density.
Figure 3
Because the E-DNA clamp-switch
mechanism is based on the possibility
of the probe to fold-back and form a triplex structure, its signal
is strongly dependent on the probe surface density. We demonstrate
this by fabricating E-DNA clamp-switch sensors of different probe
densities by varying the concentration of the DNA clamp-switch probe
employed during sensor fabrication and interrogating these sensors
with a saturating amount of a complementary target (13-mer, 300 nM).
At high probe densities, the triplex formation is so unfavored that
we only observe a signal decrease (consistent with formation of the
sole duplex DNA). As the probe surface density decreases below a critical
value of 10–11 mol/cm2, the spacing between
the probes increases enough to allow them to fold-back and form the
triplex structure (signal-on behavior).
Because the E-DNA clamp-switch
mechanism is based on the possibility
of the probe to fold-back and form a triplex structure, its signal
is strongly dependent on the probe surface density. We demonstrate
this by fabricating E-DNA clamp-switch sensors of different probe
densities by varying the concentration of the DNA clamp-switch probe
employed during sensor fabrication and interrogating these sensors
with a saturating amount of a complementary target (13-mer, 300 nM).
At high probe densities, the triplex formation is so unfavored that
we only observe a signal decrease (consistent with formation of the
sole duplex DNA). As the probe surface density decreases below a critical
value of 10–11 mol/cm2, the spacing between
the probes increases enough to allow them to fold-back and form the
triplex structure (signal-on behavior).The E-DNA clamp-switch sensor supports the signal-on detection
of oligonucleotide targets with high affinity (Figure 4a). We have studied the effect of target length on the signaling
of our E-DNA sensor by using increasing concentrations of complementary
targets of different length (Figure 4). We
have observed signal-on behavior and nanomolar affinity for complementary
targets as short as 10 bases. As the target length reaches 12 bases,
we no longer see a difference in affinity (Figure 4a). This is due to the fact that with such longer targets
we reach the ligand-depletion regime (i.e., the true KD for the target is lower than the effective probe concentration
in the working solution), and the observed KD is not related anymore to the “true” probe-target KD.[24] We also note that with targets longer than 17 bases, we no
longer
observe a signal-on behavior due to the fact that duplex formation
is favored over triplex formation.
Figure 4
(a) E-DNA clamp-switch
sensor can detect specific complementary
targets with high affinity. Here are shown binding curves obtained
by using increasing concentration of complementary targets of different
lengths (10, 11, and 12 bases). As expected, the affinity observed
with longer targets is improved until we reach the ligand-depletion
regime in which occupancy is no longer defined by the true affinity
of the probe or the concentration of the target in solution but by
the total number of ligand (target) molecules in the sample relative
to the total number of probes on the sensor surface.[24] In this latter case, a bilinear binding curve is observed
with a midpoint at a target concentration half of the effective probe
concentration ([P]eff/2). These binding
curves were obtained by adding an increasing concentration of perfectly
matched targets of different length in a 2 mL 10 mM TRIS buffer, 10
mM MgCl2, 100 mM NaCl pH 7.0. (b) Sensing mechanism of
the E-DNA clamp-switch sensor is based on the formation of a triplex
structure upon target binding. Consistent with this and considering
that triplex formation is unfavored at basic pH,[4,14−17] the affinity of our clamp-switch sensor becomes poorer as we increase
the pH at which we interrogate the sensor. Interestingly, because
a basic pH (here pH 8.0, blue curve) greatly inhibits triplex formation,
we only observe duplex formation. These binding curves were obtained
by adding an increasing concentration of a perfectly matched target
(10-mer) in a 2 mL 10 mM TRIS buffer, 10 mM MgCl2, 100
mM NaCl (pH 6, 7 and 8).
(a) E-DNA clamp-switch
sensor can detect specific complementary
targets with high affinity. Here are shown binding curves obtained
by using increasing concentration of complementary targets of different
lengths (10, 11, and 12 bases). As expected, the affinity observed
with longer targets is improved until we reach the ligand-depletion
regime in which occupancy is no longer defined by the true affinity
of the probe or the concentration of the target in solution but by
the total number of ligand (target) molecules in the sample relative
to the total number of probes on the sensor surface.[24] In this latter case, a bilinear binding curve is observed
with a midpoint at a target concentration half of the effective probe
concentration ([P]eff/2). These binding
curves were obtained by adding an increasing concentration of perfectly
matched targets of different length in a 2 mL 10 mM TRIS buffer, 10
mM MgCl2, 100 mM NaCl pH 7.0. (b) Sensing mechanism of
the E-DNA clamp-switch sensor is based on the formation of a triplex
structure upon target binding. Consistent with this and considering
that triplex formation is unfavored at basic pH,[4,14−17] the affinity of our clamp-switch sensor becomes poorer as we increase
the pH at which we interrogate the sensor. Interestingly, because
a basic pH (here pH 8.0, blue curve) greatly inhibits triplex formation,
we only observe duplex formation. These binding curves were obtained
by adding an increasing concentration of a perfectly matched target
(10-mer) in a 2 mL 10 mM TRIS buffer, 10 mM MgCl2, 100
mM NaCl (pH 6, 7 and 8).The evidenced sensing mechanism
based on triplex formation is also
supported by results obtained on the behavior of sensor’s affinity
as a function of pH (Figure 4b). As anticipated,
the sensor’s affinity for a 10-base target gets gradually poorer
with increasing pH because Hoogsteen interactions are less stable
at basic pHs (Figure 4b).[14,16] Interestingly, at pH 8, target binding does not lead anymore to
signal increase, and a signal-off behavior is instead observed. Our
interpretation is that at this pH, triplex formation is inhibited,
and the target binding only leads to the intermediate duplex-containing
structure,[25] which in turn increases, on
average, the distance between electrode surface and methylene blue
leading to a signal-off behavior. The results obtained at pH 6 and
pH 8 gives a direct comparison of the performance of an E-DNA clamp-switch
probe with that of a simple hybridization probe, which is solely based
on Watson–Crick interactions. Remarkably, the clamp-switch
probe shows for the same 10-base target (KD= 0.39 nM at pH 6) a 180-fold improved affinity compared to a simple
hybridization probe (KD = 72 nM, results
obtained at pH 8). This difference in sensitivity between a triplex
and a duplex formation is consistent with our previous observations
achieved with fluorophore/quencher labeled clamp-switch probes.[4]To further investigate the behavior of
the E-DNA clamp-switch sensor
at pH 6 and 8 and to provide direct evidence of the related structural
motifs and of our above interpretation, we used AFM and an AFM-based
nanolithographic technique termed nanografting.[26] Using nanografting, we formed squared patches of monolayer
of TOEG6. Such features provided with a reference monolayer for the
quantification, by means of side-by-side topographic AFM imaging,
of the height of the surrounding self-assembled monolayers (SAM) of
DNA clamp molecules over an ultraflat gold surface (Figure 5a,b,d,e).
Figure 5
(a–f) Analysis of a representative sample
that showcases
the monolayer height change related to target binding at different
pH values. (a, b, d, e) AFM topography images showing the DNA monolayer
(light brown) and the nanografted 2 × 2 μm2 TOEG6
features (dark brown), produced for samples analyzed at pH 6 (a, b)
and pH 8 (d, e), before and after target incubation (a, d and b, e,
respectively). Images are color-coded in a brighter-is-higher fashion
with a scale range of 10 nm. Bars = 4 μm. (c, f) Overlapped
height profiles (relative to the TOEG6 layer) obtained for the samples
analyzed at pH 6 (a, b, c, red profile) and pH 8 (d, e, f, blue profile).
Solid and dashed lines represent SAM height profiles before and after
target incubation, respectively. An arrow marks the height increase
observed at pH 6 and the decrease at pH 8. (g, h) Absolute DNA height
distributions obtained from each nanografted patch at pH 6 and pH
8 are represented in red and blue, respectively. The former are fitted
with Gaussian functions (dark red curves). ssDNA SAM height at pH
8 is ∼3 nm higher than at pH 6 (g), and there is no overlapping
between the two distributions. Height distribution at pH 6 can be
well fitted by a single Gaussian curve. After hybridization with a
10-mer target (h), height distribution at pH 6 changes significantly,
and a ∼ 25% higher component (dark red bars) appears from the
background, which is centered at a height slightly lower than 4 nm.
This distribution was fitted with a double Gaussian curve. pH 8 height
distribution shows a less remarkable change, height values becoming
∼10% lower after hybridization. The two height distributions
after target incubation clearly overlap for values around 5 nm.
(a–f) Analysis of a representative sample
that showcases
the monolayer height change related to target binding at different
pH values. (a, b, d, e) AFM topography images showing the DNA monolayer
(light brown) and the nanografted 2 × 2 μm2 TOEG6
features (dark brown), produced for samples analyzed at pH 6 (a, b)
and pH 8 (d, e), before and after target incubation (a, d and b, e,
respectively). Images are color-coded in a brighter-is-higher fashion
with a scale range of 10 nm. Bars = 4 μm. (c, f) Overlapped
height profiles (relative to the TOEG6 layer) obtained for the samples
analyzed at pH 6 (a, b, c, red profile) and pH 8 (d, e, f, blue profile).
Solid and dashed lines represent SAM height profiles before and after
target incubation, respectively. An arrow marks the height increase
observed at pH 6 and the decrease at pH 8. (g, h) Absolute DNA height
distributions obtained from each nanografted patch at pH 6 and pH
8 are represented in red and blue, respectively. The former are fitted
with Gaussian functions (dark red curves). ssDNA SAM height at pH
8 is ∼3 nm higher than at pH 6 (g), and there is no overlapping
between the two distributions. Height distribution at pH 6 can be
well fitted by a single Gaussian curve. After hybridization with a
10-mer target (h), height distribution at pH 6 changes significantly,
and a ∼ 25% higher component (dark red bars) appears from the
background, which is centered at a height slightly lower than 4 nm.
This distribution was fitted with a double Gaussian curve. pH 8 height
distribution shows a less remarkable change, height values becoming
∼10% lower after hybridization. The two height distributions
after target incubation clearly overlap for values around 5 nm.Whereas the clamp-switch probe
is 44 bases in length, and thus
has an ideal end-to-end length >10 nm, the measured height of the
optimally target-responsive SAMs (described above) varied, at pH 6,
within a small range of a few nanometers (see height profiles in Figure 5c). The latter is consistent with the fact that
effective SAM stiffness (and, therefore, the AFM-measured height)
depends on SAM density.[27,28] In particular, at very
low densities, as in this case, DNA molecules can be easily tilted
by a scanning AFM tip, thus leading to AFM-measured height values
compatible with the axial width of the molecule instead of its end-to-end
length. Figure 5g shows that, at pH 6, the
hybridization with the 10-base-long target leads to a significant
change of the height distribution, as a distinct and ∼25% higher
component emerges with respect to a back ground distribution having
a height peak at ∼4 nm (see also a representative patch and
its corresponding line profiles in Figure 5a–c). At pH 8, the AFM-measured height of the ssDNA SAM is
∼3 nm higher than at pH 6, and after target hybridization,
the measured height values are ∼10% lower, as shown in Figure 5h (see also a representative patch and its corresponding
line profiles in Figure 5d–f).It is likely that at pH 8, ssDNAs are more stretched than at pH
6 as a result of inherent electrostatic repulsion between phosphate
groups along backbones, thus resulting in thicker SAMs. Therefore,
the small percentage height decrease, measured at pH 8 after hybridization
with a target ∼70% shorter than the surface-bound probe, is
consistent with a small portion of the molecule becoming stiffer and
shorter. On the contrary, at pH 6, a background distribution is unaltered
after hybridization and is compatible with the expected strong disturbance
of the AFM tip on a more flexible chain. However, after hybridization,
the frequent detection of ∼25% higher SAMs, suggests that a
longer portion of the molecule becomes stiffer. AFM results are, therefore,
consistent with the interpretation that target hybridization leads
to the formation of distinct motifs at pH 6 and 8, which are, respectively,
a triplex and a duplex.Beyond improving affinity, the E-DNA
clamp-switch sensor also enhances
specificity. To explore this, we have tested our E-DNA clamp-switch
using increasing concentrations of a perfectly matched and a single-base
mismatched target (10-base). Experimental limitations did not allow
us to determine the KD for the single-base
mismatch target. In fact, even at very high concentrations (i.e.,
10–5 M, 4 orders of magnitude higher than the KD for a perfectly matched probe), we were unable
to observe any significant signal change in the presence of the single-base
mismatch target (Figure 6a). The E-DNA clamp-switch
sensor thus provides a discrimination factor (ratio of the affinity
constants, KDmismatch/KDperfect match) at least higher than
2000-fold (KDperfect match =
4.5 nM). As a comparison, a classic E-DNA sensor based on a simple
linear hybridization probe shows only 20-fold discrimination efficiency.
While the single-base mismatch, as expected, gave a poorer affinity
(KDmismatch = 79 nM) than that
achieved with a perfect-match target (KDperfect match = 3.7 nM), the discrimination efficiency
is much smaller than that obtained with the clamp-switch sensor (Figure 6b). Because of the experimental limitations (i.e.,
the linear probe does not bind to a 10-base target with sufficient
high affinity, see Figure 4b), the specificity
of the E-DNA clamp-switch sensor was determined using a shorter target
(10-base) than that employed with the E-DNA sensor using a linear
probe (13-base). Simulations with the nearest–neighbor model,[29−31] however, confirmed that the small difference in target length is
not the reason for the large difference in specificity we observed.
Also, in this case, the enhanced specificity of the E-DNA clamp-switch
sensor is consistent with previous observations using similar DNA
probes in solution.[4]
Figure 6
(a) Our E-DNA clamp-switch
sensor is highly specific. We demonstrate
this by interrogating the sensor with a perfect match and a one-base
mismatch target (both 10-mer) at increasing concentrations. The affinity
of the mismatch target is at least 2000-fold poorer than that of the
perfect match target, thus demonstrating that the sequence-specific
Hoogsteen base pairs in the clamp-switch offer an additional specificity
check that increases the probe’s specificity compared to an
equivalent E-DNA sensor based solely on Watson–Crick interactions.
(b) As a further demonstration of this, we show here the binding curves
obtained with a perfect match and a one-base mismatch using a classic
E-DNA sensor based on a linear DNA probe. This sensor (signal-off)
shows a separation between the perfect-match and mismatch affinity
of only ∼20-fold. These binding curves were obtained by adding
increasing concentration of a perfectly matched target and a one-base
mismatch target (10-mer for the clamp-switch and 13-mer for the linear
probe) in 2 mL of 10 mM TRIS buffer, 10 mM MgCl2, and 100
mM NaCl.
(a) Our E-DNA clamp-switch
sensor is highly specific. We demonstrate
this by interrogating the sensor with a perfect match and a one-base
mismatch target (both 10-mer) at increasing concentrations. The affinity
of the mismatch target is at least 2000-fold poorer than that of the
perfect match target, thus demonstrating that the sequence-specific
Hoogsteen base pairs in the clamp-switch offer an additional specificity
check that increases the probe’s specificity compared to an
equivalent E-DNA sensor based solely on Watson–Crick interactions.
(b) As a further demonstration of this, we show here the binding curves
obtained with a perfect match and a one-base mismatch using a classic
E-DNA sensor based on a linear DNA probe. This sensor (signal-off)
shows a separation between the perfect-match and mismatch affinity
of only ∼20-fold. These binding curves were obtained by adding
increasing concentration of a perfectly matched target and a one-base
mismatch target (10-mer for the clamp-switch and 13-mer for the linear
probe) in 2 mL of 10 mM TRIS buffer, 10 mM MgCl2, and 100
mM NaCl.
Conclusions
In this work, we have
characterized a novel signal-on electrochemical
sensor based on the use of a clamp-like DNA-based probe. We have demonstrated
that by using such clamp-switch probe that binds a target through
two distinct and sequential events, which leads to the formation of
a triplex DNA structure, we can improve both the affinity and specificity
of recognition compared to a classic Watson–Crick hybridization
probe.By turning this sensitive, specific architecture into
an electrochemical
probe, we have demonstrated that the signal-on E-DNA sensor studied
here provides a robust signal gain of up to 400%. Moreover, we were
able to measure with nanomolar affinity a specific target as short
as 10 bases. Finally, as a result of the extraordinary efficient molecular
“double-check” provided by the concomitant Watson–Crick
and Hoogsteen base pairings involved in target recognition, our signal-on
E-DNA sensor proves incredibly specific toward single-base mismatches
because it provides an excellent, unexpected, and unprecedented (over
2000-fold) discrimination efficiency. A drawback of our approach might
be represented by the fact that triplex forming sequences are usually
limited to homopurine or homopyrimidine tracks. Although this can
limit the possible number of measurable targets, we also note that
such sequences are common enough that it is straightforward to find
unique sites with sequences of 16–20 bases in human or pathogen
genomes.[32,33] Given the above attributes, the use of clamp-switch,
triplex-based, electrochemical DNA probes holds great promise for
the highly sensitive and sequence-specific detection of very short
nucleic acids.
Authors: Alexis Vallée-Bélisle; Andrew J Bonham; Norbert O Reich; Francesco Ricci; Kevin W Plaxco Journal: J Am Chem Soc Date: 2011-08-12 Impact factor: 15.419
Authors: Richard Owczarzy; Andrey V Tataurov; Yihe Wu; Jeffrey A Manthey; Kyle A McQuisten; Hakeem G Almabrazi; Kent F Pedersen; Yuan Lin; Justin Garretson; Neil O McEntaggart; Chris A Sailor; Robert B Dawson; Andrew S Peek Journal: Nucleic Acids Res Date: 2008-04-25 Impact factor: 16.971
Authors: Rahul Tevatia; Alicia Chan; Lance Oltmanns; Jay Min Lim; Ander Christensen; Michael Stoller; Ravi F Saraf Journal: Anal Chem Date: 2021-11-29 Impact factor: 8.008