Electrophoretic mobilities and particle sizes of individual Hepatitis B Virus (HBV) capsids were measured in nanofluidic channels with two nanopores in series. The channels and pores had three-dimensional topography and were milled directly in glass substrates with a focused ion beam instrument assisted by an electron flood gun. The nanochannel between the two pores was 300 nm wide, 100 nm deep, and 2.5 μm long, and the nanopores at each end had dimensions 45 nm wide, 45 nm deep, and 400 nm long. With resistive-pulse sensing, the nanopores fully resolved pulse amplitude distributions of T = 3 HBV capsids (32 nm outer diameter) and T = 4 HBV capsids (35 nm outer diameter) and had sufficient peak capacity to discriminate intermediate species from the T = 3 and T = 4 capsid distributions in an assembly reaction. Because the T = 3 and T = 4 capsids have a wiffle-ball geometry with a hollow core, the observed change in current due to the capsid transiting the nanopore is proportional to the volume of electrolyte displaced by the volume of capsid protein, not the volume of the entire capsid. Both the signal-to-noise ratio of the pulse amplitude and resolution between the T = 3 and T = 4 distributions of the pulse amplitudes increase as the electric field strength is increased. At low field strengths, transport of the larger T = 4 capsid through the nanopores is hindered relative to the smaller T = 3 capsid due to interaction with the pores, but at sufficiently high field strengths, the T = 3 and T = 4 capsids had the same electrophoretic mobilities (7.4 × 10(-5) cm(2) V(-1) s(-1)) in the nanopores and in the nanochannel with the larger cross-sectional area.
Electrophoretic mobilities and particle sizes of individual Hepatitis B Virus (HBV) capsids were measured in nanofluidic channels with two nanopores in series. The channels and pores had three-dimensional topography and were milled directly in glass substrates with a focused ion beam instrument assisted by an electron flood gun. The nanochannel between the two pores was 300 nm wide, 100 nm deep, and 2.5 μm long, and the nanopores at each end had dimensions 45 nm wide, 45 nm deep, and 400 nm long. With resistive-pulse sensing, the nanopores fully resolved pulse amplitude distributions of T = 3 HBV capsids (32 nm outer diameter) and T = 4 HBV capsids (35 nm outer diameter) and had sufficient peak capacity to discriminate intermediate species from the T = 3 and T = 4 capsid distributions in an assembly reaction. Because the T = 3 and T = 4 capsids have a wiffle-ball geometry with a hollow core, the observed change in current due to the capsid transiting the nanopore is proportional to the volume of electrolyte displaced by the volume of capsid protein, not the volume of the entire capsid. Both the signal-to-noise ratio of the pulse amplitude and resolution between the T = 3 and T = 4 distributions of the pulse amplitudes increase as the electric field strength is increased. At low field strengths, transport of the larger T = 4 capsid through the nanopores is hindered relative to the smaller T = 3 capsid due to interaction with the pores, but at sufficiently high field strengths, the T = 3 and T = 4 capsids had the same electrophoretic mobilities (7.4 × 10(-5) cm(2) V(-1) s(-1)) in the nanopores and in the nanochannel with the larger cross-sectional area.
A virus capsid, the protein
shell that protects the virus genome, is typically constructed of
tens to hundreds of subunits, usually arranged with icosahedral or
helical symmetry. Their structure and assembly are of broad interest.
Capsids are used in biotechnology as containers, as platforms for
vaccines, and as vehicles for novel complexes.[1−3] Capsid self-assembly
has been intensively studied for its value in basic science and nanotechnology.[4,5] For example, Hepatitis B Virus (HBV) core (capsid) protein homodimers
spontaneously assemble into two roughly spherical forms with T = 3 (90 dimers, 3 MDa, 32 nm diameter) and T = 4 (120 dimers, 4 MDa, 35 nm diameter) symmetry.[6] The structure of the HBV capsid is known, its in
vitro assembly is well characterized, and its in
vivo assembly has been identified as an antiviral target.[7−11] A means of examining and identifying individual complete and defective
capsids in solution has many applications.Resistive-pulse sensing
with nanopores detects MDa-sized biomolecules
with single-particle resolution[12] and can
be used to understand population heterogeneity. Moreover, single-particle
measurements complement ensemble methods, which often obscure contributions
from individual species. We are developing electrophoretic methods
that track individual virus particles in solution, in real time, and
without the use of fluorescent labels. These methods also return physical
parameters, e.g., particle size and electrophoretic mobility. To conduct
single-particle electrophoresis[13−15] of single virus capsids,[16] we have fabricated a nanochannel with two nanopores
in series into a microfluidic device that detects individual HBV capsids.
Detection at the nanopores is accomplished by resistive-pulse sensing,
in which changes in conductivity are detected when particles transit
an electrically biased nanopore.[17] Each
conductivity change (or pulse) has an amplitude and width proportional
to size and mobility of the particle, respectively. Resistive-pulse
sensing is well suited to study single virus-sized nanoparticles in
solution because of its high signal-to-noise ratio.[18−20]Conventional
resistive-pulse sensing with a single nanopore typically
detects each particle a single time. Size discrimination is achieved
in both pulse amplitude and width.[21−23] The residence time within
the nanopore (or pulse width) is used to calculate electrophoretic
mobility when particle size < pore length.[24,25] However, additional information can be obtained when multiple measurements
are made on a single particle. Passing a single particle back and
forth through a single pore in a controlled manner provides information
on particle dynamics[26,27] and diffusion.[28,29] Averaging together multiple measurements made on a single particle
provides greater precision in particle sizing.[30] When multiple pores are connected in series, a single particle
is detected multiple times, and the migration time between pores is
used to calculate electrophoretic mobility. Two solid-state pores
stacked vertically in a device measure the time-of-flight of DNA between
the pores.[15] With an in-plane approach,
however, virtually any two-dimensional architecture can be designed
and tested. Two nanopores arranged in plane and in series sense HBV
capsids.[16] An alternative geometry to sensing
particles at channel constrictions is to connect several openings
(or nodes) in series, where the node pattern is imprinted on each
pulse to extend the dynamic range for the measurement.[31]Devices for resistive-pulse sensing can
be fabricated by a number
of methods. Focused ion beam (FIB) milling permits fabrication of
nanopores[32] and nanochannels[33] whose dimensions can be easily tailored through
appropriate control of the ion beam dose. With ion beam milled nanopores,
DNA strands are detected, and the levels of current displacement are
assigned to various degrees of strand folding.[34] FIB-milled nanochannels are used to measure the effect
of nanochannel dimensions on DNA mobility by fluorescence microscopy[35] and to sense DNA translocation by resistive-pulse
sensing.[36] Moreover, lateral conductance
measurements of DNA molecules transiting through a nanoscale cross
intersection offer an alternative method to axial conductance measurements.[37] In conventional FIB milling, glass substrates
are typically coated with a conductive film, e.g., metal, to effectively
compensate for charge buildup of ions on the substrate surface and
to minimize beam drift during milling. In this work, we milled nanoscale
channels directly into an uncoated glass substrate with an FIB instrument.
During fabrication of the nanochannels, we used an electron flood
gun to minimize charging on the substrate surface, circumvent the
need to incorporate a conductive film, and simplify the fabrication
process.We characterized device performance with fully formed
HBV capsids
with outer diameters of 32 nm (T = 3) and 35 nm (T = 4). The 3 nm difference in the outer diameters of the T = 3 and T = 4 capsids is easily resolved,
and the relative current displacements from the translocation events
are proportional to the volume of capsid protein. Also, the relative
pulse counts of the T = 4 to T =
3 capsids mirror the expected capsid ratios in solution, which indicates
that the transport of the capsids through the nanopores is not biased
toward the smaller T = 3 capsids. Both the pulse
amplitudes and signal-to-noise ratios for the capsids increase with
increasing field strength. The pulse widths are used to calculate
the electrophoretic mobilities of the capsids in the nanopores, and
the pore-to-pore times are used to calculate the electrophoretic mobilities
of the capsids between the two pores. At low field strengths, transport
of the larger T = 4 capsids through the nanopores
is hindered slightly due to interaction with the nanopores, and consequently,
the T = 4 capsids have a lower mobility than the
smaller T = 3 capsids. However, at high field strengths,
the electrophoretic mobilities estimated from the pulse widths of
the capsids in the nanopores match the electrophoretic mobilities
measured from the pore-to-pore times. Finally, we demonstrate that
the FIB-milled nanopore devices provide sufficient peak capacity to
analyze the products from virus assembly reactions and are able to
resolve intermediate species from the T = 3 and T = 4 capsid distributions during a 120 min reaction.
Experimental
Section
Materials
We purchased sodium chloride from Mallinckrodt,
Inc.; 4-(2-hydroxyethyl)-1-piperazineethanesulfonic acid (HEPES) and
methanol from Sigma-Aldrich Co.; ammonium hydroxide from J.T. Baker;
hydrogen peroxide from Macron Fine Chemicals; sodium hydroxide from
Fisher Scientific; Microposit MF-319 developer from Rohm and Haas
Electronic Materials; chromium etchants 8002-A and 1020 and buffered
oxide etchant from Transene Co., Inc.; D263 mask blanks from Telic
Co.; #1.5 coverslip glass from VWR, Inc.; Anotop 10 syringe filters
from Whatman GmbH; and 353NDT Epoxy from Epoxy Technology, Inc.
Virus Capsids
HBV capsids were assembled from core
protein (Cp149, 17 kDa) dimers expressed in E. coli and purified as described previously.[38] After assembly, the T = 3 and T = 4 capsids were separated from free dimer and each other in a 10%–40%
(w/v) continuous sucrose gradient in 50 mM HEPES (pH 7.5) with 300
mM NaCl that was centrifuged for 6 h at 150 000g. The upper particle band (T = 3 capsids) and the
lower particle band (T = 4 capsids) were extracted,
dialyzed into 50 mM HEPES (pH 7.5) with 1 M NaCl, and concentrated
to a final concentration of 0.2–0.3 mg/mL. Sample purity and
the ratio of T = 4 to T = 3 capsids
were verified by transmission electron microscopy (JEM-1010, JEOL
Ltd.); samples were adsorbed to glow-discharged carbon-coated grids
(EM Sciences) and stained with 2% uranyl acetate.
Device Fabrication
The microchannels were fabricated
by standard UV photolithography and wet chemical etching, as described
previously.[39] D263 glass substrates coated
with 120 nm of Cr and 530 nm of AZ1518 photoresist were exposed to
200 mJ/cm2 UV radiation through a photomask (HTA Photomask).
The photoresist was developed for 2 min in the MF-319 developer, and
the microchannel pattern was transferred to the chromium layer by
etching for 8 min in chromium etchant 8002-A. Finally, microchannels
were etched in buffered oxide etchant to a depth of 9.33 ± 0.03
μm and width of 40 μm. Dimensions of the microchannels
were determined with a stylus-based profiler (Dektak 6M, Veeco Instruments,
Inc.). Access holes were sandblasted at the ends of the microchannels
(AEC Air Eraser, Paasche Airbrush Co.) before removal of the remaining
photoresist with acetone and chromium with chromium etchant 1020.
Substrates were cleaned with a solution of NH4OH, H2O2, and H2O (2:1:2) at 70 °C for
20 min, sonicated in water, and dried overnight in a 90 °C furnace.The nanochannel and nanopores were milled directly into the glass
substrates with a focused ion beam (FIB) instrument (Auriga 60, Carl
Zeiss, GmbH) controlled by the NanoPatterning and Visualization Engine
(NPVE; FIBICS, Inc.). The nanochannel was milled in three steps. The
nanochannel sections that connected the pores with the microchannels
were milled with a 30 kV beam at 50 pA and a dose of 1 nC/μm2. The pore-to-pore channel was milled with the same accelerating
potential and beam current, but with a dose of 0.5 nC/μm2. The two nanopores were milled as a single line pass with
a 30 kV beam at 20 pA and a dose of 0.006 μC/μm to connect
the three nanochannel sections. During the FIB milling on the glass
substrate, an electron flood gun (FG 15/40, SPECS, GmbH) operated
at 5 eV and 20 μA compensated for the buildup of positive charge
on the substrate surface. Device dimensions were determined with the
SEM on the FIB instrument and an AFM (MFP-3D, Asylum Research, Inc.).
To bond the devices, the substrates and #1.5 cover glass were hydrolyzed
in a solution of 1 M NaOH for 15 min at 70 °C, sonicated in water,
brought into contact with each other, dried overnight at 90 °C,
and annealed in a furnace at 545 °C for 10 h. Glass reservoirs
were epoxied over sandblasted holes.
Resistive-Pulse Measurements
Channels were sequentially
filled with methanol, methanol/water (1:1), water, 100 mM NaOH, water,
and 50 mM HEPES buffer (pH 7.5) with 1 M NaCl. All solutions were
filtered with 20 nm syringe filters. For the sensing and electrophoresis
measurements, 1 nM solutions of T = 3 HBV capsids
(3.06 MDa, 32 nm outer diameter), T = 4 HBV capsids
(4.08 MDa, 35 nm outer diameter), or mixtures of T = 3 and T = 4 capsids in 50 mM HEPES buffer with
1 M NaCl were placed in the capsid reservoir. For the assembly experiment,
8.5 μM Cp149 dimer in 50 mM HEPES buffer (pH 7.5) was mixed
with 50 mM HEPES buffer (pH 7.5) and 50 mM HEPES buffer (pH 7.5) with
2 M NaCl to achieve a final concentration of 0.9 μM Cp149 in
50 mM HEPES with 1 M NaCl to initiate assembly. The reaction mixture
was loaded into the capsid reservoir, and a vacuum was applied to
draw the reaction mixture into the microchannel and adjacent to the
nanochannel. The assembly reaction was monitored from 1.5 min after
initial mixing up to 120 min.Electrical measurements were conducted
inside a stainless steel Faraday cage (1 ft × 1 ft × 1 ft)
covered in 2″ acoustic wedge foam. Ag/AgCl electrodes were
placed inside the buffer-filled reservoirs, and an Axopatch 200B current
amplifier (Molecular Devices, Inc.) was used to apply the potential
between the capsid and waste reservoirs (Figure 1a) and to measure the current. Collection frequencies of 20 and 40
kHz and filter frequencies of 5 and 10 kHz were used for the sensing
and assembly experiments, respectively.
Figure 1
(a) Schematic of the
microfluidic device with two V-shaped microchannels
separated by a 10-μm gap. The nanochannel with two pores was
milled with a focused ion beam instrument to bridge the two microchannels
as shown by the scanning electron microscope (SEM) image in panel
b and the atomic force microscope (AFM) image in panel c. The pores
are 45 nm wide, 45 nm deep, and 430 nm long; the pore-to-pore channel
is 300 nm wide, 104 nm deep, and 2.5-μm long; and the channels
that connect the pores to the microchannels are 510 nm wide and 210
nm deep. In panel b, the dashed box is an enlarged view of the two
pores and pore-to-pore channel, which is the 2.5-μm-long channel
between pores 1 and 2.
(a) Schematic of the
microfluidic device with two V-shaped microchannels
separated by a 10-μm gap. The nanochannel with two pores was
milled with a focused ion beam instrument to bridge the two microchannels
as shown by the scanning electron microscope (SEM) image in panel
b and the atomic force microscope (AFM) image in panel c. The pores
are 45 nm wide, 45 nm deep, and 430 nm long; the pore-to-pore channel
is 300 nm wide, 104 nm deep, and 2.5-μm long; and the channels
that connect the pores to the microchannels are 510 nm wide and 210
nm deep. In panel b, the dashed box is an enlarged view of the two
pores and pore-to-pore channel, which is the 2.5-μm-long channel
between pores 1 and 2.We used three devices for the sensing and electrophoresis
experiments
and one device for the assembly experiment. The resistances in the
nanochannel and nanopores were calculated by treating the micro- and
nanochannels as a series of resistors, for which the resistance in
each segment is proportional to the channel length over the cross-sectional
area. For the devices in the sensing experiments, 96% of the potential
was dropped across the nanochannel with ∼35% of the applied
potential dropped across each pore. Nanopores were etched slightly
by NaOH during the bonding process, and final pore dimensions were
calculated by conductivity measurements. Current data were imported
into OriginPro 9.0 (OriginLab Corp.) to subtract the baseline current
and to determine the pulse amplitude (Δi),
pulse width (w), and pore-to-pore transit time (tpp) for each capsid that transited the two pores
in series.
Results and Discussion
Resistive-Pulse Sensing
Resistive-pulse sensing was
conducted with the device design shown in Figure 1. Two V-shaped microchannels are bridged by a 10-μm-long
nanochannel composed of channel sections with three sets of dimensions
(Figure 1b,c). The dimensions of the two nanopores
are tailored to sense HBV capsids; the pores are 45 ± 5 nm wide,
45 ± 5 nm deep, and 430 ± 20 nm long. The two nanochannel
sections that connect the pores to the microchannels are milled to
a width of 510 ± 10 nm and a depth of 210 ± 1 nm. The pore-to-pore
channel formed between pores 1 and 2 is 300 ± 4 nm wide, 104
± 1 nm deep, and 2.5 μm long and has one-third the cross-sectional
area of the nanochannel sections that connect the pores to the microchannels.The nanochannel design has two key improvements over our earlier
device design for two-pore sensing.[16] First,
focused ion beam (FIB) milling enables fabrication of nanochannels
in three dimensions where the nanochannel dimensions are tuned by
varying the ion beam dose. Consequently, the pores are small enough
to sense individual virus capsids, and the nanochannels adjacent to
the pores have larger cross sections to reduce overall device resistance.
With the design in Figure 1, ∼35% of
the applied potential is dropped across each pore, and 70% of the
applied potential is dropped across both pores. Having the resistance
of each nanopore account for a larger fraction of the total resistance
enhances the pulse amplitude relative to the baseline current and
improves the signal-to-noise ratio. Second, the pore-to-pore channel
with the reduced cross-sectional area has a higher field strength
relative to the nanochannels that connect the pores to the microchannels.
Due to the higher field strength, a 20% decrease in the relative standard
deviation of the pore-to-pore velocity distribution was observed in
these devices compared to identical two-pore devices without a reduced
cross-sectional area in the pore-to-pore channel (data not shown).The HBV capsids are electrokinetically driven along the nanochannel
and through the two nanopores. The presence of the capsid in the pore
increases the resistance in the pore and, consequently, reduces the
ion current. The pulse generated in the current trace has a pulse
amplitude (Δi) proportional to the volume of
the capsid protein and a pulse width (w) proportional
to the residence time of the capsid in the pore. A series of nine
two-pulse events is shown in Figure 2a, and
a single two-pulse event is shown in Figure 2b. The pore-to-pore time (tpp) is the
time between pulses from the trailing edge of the first pulse to the
leading edge of the next pulse and is used to calculate capsid velocity
in the nanochannel and, subsequently, electrophoretic mobility. Due
to slight differences in the pore dimensions, the pulse amplitude
for each capsid is reported as the average amplitude from pores 1
and 2. Applied potentials up to 600 mV were tested with stable operation
at baseline currents up to 18 nA.
Figure 2
(a) Variation of current with time for nine two-pulse events of
Hepatitis B Virus (HBV) capsids passing through a two-pore nanochannel
with an applied potential of 600 mV. (b) Two-pulse event for a single T = 4 HBV capsid with pulse amplitude, pulse width, and
pore-to-pore time labeled.
(a) Variation of current with time for nine two-pulse events of
Hepatitis B Virus (HBV) capsids passing through a two-pore nanochannel
with an applied potential of 600 mV. (b) Two-pulse event for a single T = 4 HBV capsid with pulse amplitude, pulse width, and
pore-to-pore time labeled.Discrimination between particle sizes is apparent in the
differences
in their pulse amplitude. Figure 3 shows that
the pulse amplitudes for the T = 3 and T = 4 capsids increase as applied potential and electric field strength
in the pores increase. Interestingly, the root-mean-square baseline
noise increases at a much lower slope than the pulse amplitudes, and
consequently, the signal-to-noise ratios (S/N ratio) for the T = 3 and T = 4 capsids increase with the
electric field strength in the pore. At all applied potentials, the
larger T = 4 capsids (35 nm outer diameter) displace
an average of 0.56% of the baseline current, and the smaller T = 3 capsids (32 nm outer diameter) displace an average
of 0.39% of the baseline current. Previous reports indicate that the
pulse amplitude for a spherical particle passing through a sufficiently
long pore (pore length ≫ particle diameter) is proportional
to particle volume.[18,40,41]
Figure 3
Variation
of average pulse amplitude and signal-to-noise ratio
(S/N ratio) for T = 3 and T = 4
capsids with electric field strength in the nanopore. Error bars are
±σ for 150 capsids for each measurement.
Variation
of average pulse amplitude and signal-to-noise ratio
(S/N ratio) for T = 3 and T = 4
capsids with electric field strength in the nanopore. Error bars are
±σ for 150 capsids for each measurement.However, the ratio of the particle volume (assuming
a solid sphere)
to pore volume for T = 4 capsids is estimated to
have a relative current displacement of 2.5%, over 4 times the measured
displaced current. The discrepancy between the calculated and measured
relative current displacement can be explained by capsid geometry,
which is better approximated as a porous spherical shell, or “wiffle
ball,” filled with electrolyte. Current displacement by the
capsid should be proportional to envelope (or protein) volume, and
not solid volume.[42] From image reconstructions
of cryo-electron microscopy data, the thickness of the capsid shell
is estimated to be 2.5 nm, and porosity of the capsid shell is estimated
to be 35%.[43] Relative current displacement
is calculated by dividing the wiffle ball volume by the sensing nanopore
volume:where rout is
the outer radius of the capsid (17.5 nm for the T = 4 capsid and 16 nm for the T = 3 capsid), s is the capsid shell thickness (2.5 nm), Φ is capsid
porosity (0.35), lp is nanopore length
(430 nm), wp is nanopore width (45 nm),
and dp is nanopore depth (45 nm). The
relative current displacements calculated for the wiffle-ball model
are 0.61% for T = 4 capsids and 0.50% for T = 3 capsids, which correspond well to the measured values,
0.56% and 0.39%, respectively. Because the capsid geometry is not
uniform as estimated by eq 1, an alternative
method to estimate the relative current displacement is to calculate
the ratio of protein volume for each capsid to pore volume. With 0.742
cm3/g as the protein density,[43] the T = 4 capsid (4.08 MDa) has a protein volume
to pore volume ratio of 0.58%, and the T = 3 capsid
(3.06 MDa) has a protein volume to pore volume ratio of 0.43%. These
values are in excellent agreement with the measured current displacement.
Size Discrimination
Resistive-pulse measurements are
sensitive to small differences in analyte diameter, and the 3 nm difference
between the outer diameters of the T = 3 and T = 4 capsids is easily resolved. Figure 4 shows histograms of the pulse amplitudes of the T = 3 and T = 4 capsids at low and high field strength.
At low field strength (150 mV applied), the larger T = 4 capsids displaced an average current of 22.9 ± 0.95 pA,
whereas the smaller T = 3 capsids displaced an average
current of 16.5 ± 1.4 pA. As field strength increases, pulse
amplitude and resolution between the pulse amplitude distributions
increase. At high field strength (600 mV applied), the T = 4 capsids displaced an average current of 84.2 ± 2.3 pA,
and the T = 3 capsids displaced an average current
of 57.5 ± 1.9 pA. Resolution between the pulse-amplitude distributions
increases from 2.7 at low field strength to 6.2 at high field strength,
a factor of 2.3. (Resolution is defined as the difference between
the means of the distributions divided by the average width of the
distributions (4σ).) Of particular interest is the ability to
resolve pulse-amplitude distributions of intermediate capsid sizes
that may fall below the T = 3 distribution or between
the T = 3 and T = 4 distributions.
Figure 4
Histograms
of average pulse amplitude for T =
3 and T = 4 HBV capsids at (a) high field strength
(600 mV applied potential) and (b) low field strength (150 mV applied
potential). Lines are Gaussian fits to the pulse amplitude distributions
for 150 capsids in panel a and 300 capsids in panel b.
Histograms
of average pulse amplitude for T =
3 and T = 4 HBV capsids at (a) high field strength
(600 mV applied potential) and (b) low field strength (150 mV applied
potential). Lines are Gaussian fits to the pulse amplitude distributions
for 150 capsids in panel a and 300 capsids in panel b.Relative pulse counts from five ratios of T =
4 to T = 3 capsids determined if the measured capsid
ratios matched the expected ratios. In Figure 5, the ratios of T = 4 to T = 3
pulse counts from the resistive-pulse measurements are plotted against
the ratios of capsid sizes obtained from negative-stained electron
micrographs. At an applied potential of 140 mV, pulse amplitudes less
than 18.5 pA are counted as T = 3 capsids, and pulse
amplitudes greater than 18.5 pA are counted as T =
4 capsids (compare to Figure 4b). The capsid
ratios from the resistive-pulse measurements correlate extremely well
with the capsid ratios from the TEM images. The linear fit to the
data has a slope of 1, which indicates the nanopores do not preferentially
sense the smaller T = 3 capsids. In other words,
the larger T = 4 capsids do not experience a larger
entropic barrier to enter the nanopores than the smaller T = 3 capsids, which can complicate interpretation of data collected
with smaller nanopores.[20]
Figure 5
Ratios of T = 4 to T = 3 counts
from resistive-pulse measurements with the nanopores (nanopore T4/T3)
and from negative-stain electron microscopy (TEM T4/T3). The linear
fit has a slope of 1, indicating the count ratio is not biased toward
the smaller T = 3 capsid. Counts are 484 capsids
for the nanopore ratios and 2000 capsids for the TEM ratios.
Ratios of T = 4 to T = 3 counts
from resistive-pulse measurements with the nanopores (nanopore T4/T3)
and from negative-stain electron microscopy (TEMT4/T3). The linear
fit has a slope of 1, indicating the count ratio is not biased toward
the smaller T = 3 capsid. Counts are 484 capsids
for the nanopore ratios and 2000 capsids for the TEM ratios.
Electrokinetic Mobilities
At low field strengths, the
larger T = 4 capsids produced pulse widths that were
1.2 ± 0.4 ms, whereas the smaller T = 3 capsids
produced pulse widths that were 0.92 ± 0.24 ms (Figure 6a). These pulse widths are statistically different
(t(481) = 9.45; p < 0.001). Pulse
width is the residence time of the capsid within the pore, and this
difference in pulse widths indicates that the larger T = 4 capsids are interacting with (e.g., adsorbing to) the pore wall
more frequently than the smaller T = 3 capsids when
there is an insufficient force (e.g., applied potential) driving the T = 4 capsids through the pore. The increased diameter and
surface area of the T = 4 capsid compared with the T = 3 capsid may be responsible for more frequent adsorption
events to the glass surface.[44] Although
pulse width shows a size dependence, the times between pulses (pore-to-pore
times) for T = 3 and T = 4 capsids
are essentially identical (Figure 6b). The
average pore-to-pore times are 112 ± 55 ms for the T = 4 capsids and 115 ± 57 ms for T = 3 capsids
and are statistically indistinguishable (t(481) =
0.59; p = 0.56).
Figure 6
Variation of pulse width and pore-to-pore
time with average pulse
amplitude for T = 3 and T = 4 capsids
at an applied potential of 140 mV. Pulse widths for the T = 4 capsids (1.2 ± 0.4 ms) are wider than the pulse widths
for the T = 3 capsids (0.92 ± 0.24 ms), whereas
pore-to-pore times for the T = 4 capsids (112 ±
55 ms) are the same as the pore-to-pore times for the T = 3 capsids (115 ± 57 ms). Open squares are the averages for
each distribution, and error bars are ±σ for 484 capsids.
Variation of pulse width and pore-to-pore
time with average pulse
amplitude for T = 3 and T = 4 capsids
at an applied potential of 140 mV. Pulse widths for the T = 4 capsids (1.2 ± 0.4 ms) are wider than the pulse widths
for the T = 3 capsids (0.92 ± 0.24 ms), whereas
pore-to-pore times for the T = 4 capsids (112 ±
55 ms) are the same as the pore-to-pore times for the T = 3 capsids (115 ± 57 ms). Open squares are the averages for
each distribution, and error bars are ±σ for 484 capsids.Electrophoretic mobilities in
the pores and pore-to-pore channel
were calculated from the pulse widths and pore-to-pore times, respectively,
and are plotted as a function of field strength (Figure 7). Electrokinetic mobility (μek) is the sum
of the electrophoretic (μep) and electroosmotic (μeo) mobilities.At 1 M NaCl, the electroosmotic mobility
is
greatly reduced due to the small electrical double layer thickness[45] and was experimentally determined to be 3.5
± 0.1 × 10–5 cm2 V–1 s–1 in a glass nanochannel that was 54 nm deep,
530 nm wide, and 76 μm long.[46] Because
electrophoretic transport of the capsids is in the opposite direction
of the electroosmotic transport, the electroosmotic mobility is added
to the measured electrokinetic mobility to determine the electrophoretic
mobilities for the T = 3 and T =
4 capsids plotted in Figure 7.
Figure 7
Variation of electrophoretic
mobility with electric field strength
for T = 3 and T = 4 capsids in the
nanopores and pore-to-pore nanochannel. At the lower field strengths
in the nanopores, the T = 4 capsids have a lower
electrophoretic mobility than the T = 3 capsids due
to interaction with the pore. At higher field strengths, the nanopore
and nanochannel electrophoretic mobilities converge to 7.4 ×
10–5 cm2 V–1 s–1. Error bars are ±σ for 1330 capsids.
Variation of electrophoretic
mobility with electric field strength
for T = 3 and T = 4 capsids in the
nanopores and pore-to-pore nanochannel. At the lower field strengths
in the nanopores, the T = 4 capsids have a lower
electrophoretic mobility than the T = 3 capsids due
to interaction with the pore. At higher field strengths, the nanopore
and nanochannel electrophoretic mobilities converge to 7.4 ×
10–5 cm2 V–1 s–1. Error bars are ±σ for 1330 capsids.Electrophoretic mobility can exhibit
a slight field strength dependence[47] and
is observed to increase in both the pores
and pore-to-pore channel with field strength. The electrophoretic
mobilities calculated from pore-to-pore times are identical for T = 3 and T = 4 capsids for all fields
tested and approach a constant value above 80 V/cm. However, the electrophoretic
mobilities calculated from the pulse width depend on capsid size.
Smaller T = 3 capsids exhibit a higher electrophoretic
mobility in the nanopore than the larger T = 4 capsids
at low field strength, but the difference disappears as the field
strength increases. The nanopore electrophoretic mobility of individual T = 4 capsids at low field strengths exhibits a log-normal
distribution and shifts toward a normal distribution as field strength
increases. This trend suggests that some capsids are interacting with
the pore, e.g., adsorbing to the pore wall, at low field strengths,
and these interactions lower the average electrophoretic mobility
of the T = 4 capsids in the pores. This effect is
also evident in pulse width (Figure 6a).Electrophoretic mobilities in the pores and pore-to-pore channel
converge to the same value at high field strengths, and the average
electrophoretic mobilities are calculated for each capsid at the highest
field strengths tested. The electrophoretic mobilities in the pore-to-pore
channel are 7.5 ± 0.9 × 10–5 cm2V–1 s–1 for the T = 4 capsids and 7.4 ± 0.9 × 10–5 cm2 V–1 s–1 for the T = 3 capsids. The electrophoretic mobilities in the nanopores
are 7.3 ± 0.8 × 10–5 cm2 V–1 s–1 for the T =
4 capsids and 7.4 ± 0.7 × 10–5 cm2 V–1 s–1 for the T = 3 capsids. These measured electrophoretic mobilities
are in agreement with mobilities calculated from similarly sized virus
particles.[48]
Virus Assembly
We monitored the assembly of HBV dimer
into T = 3 and T = 4 capsids with
a nanofluidic device. Dimensions for the device used in the assembly
experiment differed slightly from the device used in the sensing and
electrophoresis experiments. The nanopores had a larger cross-section
(60 ± 5 nm wide and 60 ± 5 nm deep) and shorter lengths
(206 ± 6 nm), and the pore-to-pore nanochannel had the same cross-section
(300 ± 4 nm wide and 104 ± 1 nm deep) but a shorter length
(1.00 ± 0.02 μm). Pores with larger cross-sectional areas
passed aggregates formed during the reaction more readily, and the
shorter pore-to-pore channel easily resolved the pore-to-pore times
between adjacent events at higher dimer concentrations. To initiate
assembly, Cp149 dimer was mixed with buffer to a final concentration
of 0.9 μM dimer in 50 mM HEPES (pH 7.5) with 1 M NaCl, and the
reaction was monitored from 1.5 to 120 min (Figure 8). With an applied potential of 425 mV, the T = 4 distribution is centered at 81 pA, and the smaller T = 3 distribution is centered at 57 pA. In the first 15 min of assembly
(Figure 8a), a range of late-stage intermediates
are detected adjacent to the T = 3 and T = 4 distributions. For example, a trapped intermediate that displaces
an average current of 48 pA and corresponds to a 79-dimer species
persists during the assembly reaction. A continuum of intermediates
is present between the T = 3 and T = 4 distributions, as observed in experiments with charge detection
mass spectrometry.[49] As the reaction proceeds,
the number of T = 4 capsids increases, the T = 4 distribution narrows, and the intermediate population
decreases significantly (Figure 8b). The T = 3 distribution remains constant over the course of the
measurement. These nanopore devices generate sufficient peak capacity
to capture species as small as 24 dimers yet track a number of intermediate
distributions during the assembly reaction.
Figure 8
Histograms of average
pulse amplitude for assembly of 0.9 μM
Cp149 dimer for (a) 1.5–15 min of assembly and (b) 105–120
min of assembly. (a) With 425 mV applied potential, T = 3 and T = 4 capsids have distributions centered
at 59 pA and 82 pA of current, respectively, and intermediate species
are observed adjacent to these distributions. (b) As the assembly
experiment proceeds, the number of T = 4 capsids
increases, the T = 4 distribution narrows, and the
number of intermediate species decreases. Counts are 1926 particles
in panel a and 2119 particles in panel b.
Histograms of average
pulse amplitude for assembly of 0.9 μM
Cp149 dimer for (a) 1.5–15 min of assembly and (b) 105–120
min of assembly. (a) With 425 mV applied potential, T = 3 and T = 4 capsids have distributions centered
at 59 pA and 82 pA of current, respectively, and intermediate species
are observed adjacent to these distributions. (b) As the assembly
experiment proceeds, the number of T = 4 capsids
increases, the T = 4 distribution narrows, and the
number of intermediate species decreases. Counts are 1926 particles
in panel a and 2119 particles in panel b.
Conclusion
We have demonstrated single-particle electrophoresis
in a nanochannel
with a nanopore at each end. The 3 nm difference in the outer diameters
of the T = 3 and T = 4 capsids is
easily resolved by their relative current displacement, which is proportional
to the volume of capsid protein, not the volume of the whole capsid.
Also, the relative pulse counts of the T = 4 to T = 3 capsids mirror the expected capsid ratios, which suggests
that the larger T = 4 capsid is not entropically
hindered to enter the pore. We will use these devices to further our
studies of HBV assembly. To date, the short-lived intermediate structures
formed in the assembly reaction have only been studied through mathematical
models.[4,50] Our single particle measurements in real
time will be used to determine what intermediate species exist under
different assembly conditions.
Authors: Hui Wang; James E Dunning; Albert P-H Huang; Jacqueline A Nyamwanda; Daniel Branton Journal: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A Date: 2004-09-01 Impact factor: 11.205
Authors: Lindsay T Sexton; Hitomi Mukaibo; Parag Katira; Henry Hess; Stefanie A Sherrill; Lloyd P Horne; Charles R Martin Journal: J Am Chem Soc Date: 2010-05-19 Impact factor: 15.419
Authors: Laurent D Menard; Chad E Mair; Michael E Woodson; Jean Pierre Alarie; J Michael Ramsey Journal: ACS Nano Date: 2012-09-17 Impact factor: 15.881
Authors: Jinsheng Zhou; Panagiotis Kondylis; Daniel G Haywood; Zachary D Harms; Lye Siang Lee; Adam Zlotnick; Stephen C Jacobson Journal: Anal Chem Date: 2018-05-29 Impact factor: 6.986
Authors: Panagiotis Kondylis; Christopher J Schlicksup; Nicholas E Brunk; Jinsheng Zhou; Adam Zlotnick; Stephen C Jacobson Journal: J Am Chem Soc Date: 2018-12-31 Impact factor: 15.419
Authors: Christopher John Schlicksup; Patrick Laughlin; Steven Dunkelbarger; Joseph Che-Yen Wang; Adam Zlotnick Journal: ACS Chem Biol Date: 2020-05-19 Impact factor: 5.100
Authors: Adam Zlotnick; Balasubramanian Venkatakrishnan; Zhenning Tan; Eric Lewellyn; William Turner; Samson Francis Journal: Antiviral Res Date: 2015-06-27 Impact factor: 5.970
Authors: Panagiotis Kondylis; Christopher J Schlicksup; Sarah P Katen; Lye Siang Lee; Adam Zlotnick; Stephen C Jacobson Journal: ACS Infect Dis Date: 2019-02-04 Impact factor: 5.084
Authors: Panagiotis Kondylis; Jinsheng Zhou; Zachary D Harms; Andrew R Kneller; Lye Siang Lee; Adam Zlotnick; Stephen C Jacobson Journal: Anal Chem Date: 2017-04-17 Impact factor: 6.986
Authors: Lye Siang Lee; Nicholas Brunk; Daniel G Haywood; David Keifer; Elizabeth Pierson; Panagiotis Kondylis; Joseph Che-Yen Wang; Stephen C Jacobson; Martin F Jarrold; Adam Zlotnick Journal: Protein Sci Date: 2017-09-16 Impact factor: 6.725