| Literature DB >> 32408710 |
Yeşeren Saylan1, Özgecan Erdem2,3, Fatih Inci3,4, Adil Denizli1.
Abstract
Understanding the fundamentals of natural design, structure, and function has pushed the limits of current knowledge and has enabled us to transfer knowledge from the bench to the market as a product. In particular, biomimicry-one of the crucial strategies in this respect-has allowed researchers to tackle major challenges in the disciplines of engineering, biology, physics, materials science, and medicine. It has an enormous impact on these fields with pivotal applications, which are not limited to the applications of biocompatible tooth implants, programmable drug delivery systems, biocompatible tissue scaffolds, organ-on-a-chip systems, wearable platforms, molecularly imprinted polymers (MIPs), and smart biosensors. Among them, MIPs provide a versatile strategy to imitate the procedure of molecular recognition precisely, creating structural fingerprint replicas of molecules for biorecognition studies. Owing to their affordability, easy-to-fabricate/use features, stability, specificity, and multiplexing capabilities, host-guest recognition systems have largely benefitted from the MIP strategy. This review article is structured with four major points: (i) determining the requirement of biomimetic systems and denoting multiple examples in this manner; (ii) introducing the molecular imprinting method and reviewing recent literature to elaborate the power and impact of MIPs on a variety of scientific and industrial fields; (iii) exemplifying the MIP-integrated systems, i.e., chromatographic systems, lab-on-a-chip systems, and sensor systems; and (iv) closing remarks.Entities:
Keywords: biomimetic; biorecognition; biosensing; molecularly imprinted systems
Year: 2020 PMID: 32408710 PMCID: PMC7345028 DOI: 10.3390/biomimetics5020020
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Biomimetics (Basel) ISSN: 2313-7673
Figure 1Scheme of the synthesis, and recognition of the molecularly imprinted polymer. Republished with permission from Ansari et al. [61].
The comparison of the different polymerization types. Republished with permission from Rutkowska et al. [62].
| Polymerization | General Advantages and Disadvantages |
|---|---|
| Bulk | • Simple and universal type of polymerization. |
| Precipitation | • Providing uniform size and high yields of imprinted materials |
| Suspension | • An organic-based medium is mixed with an excess of water and the amount of suspension stabilizer. |
| Multi-step swelling | • Producing mono-disperse and outstanding materials with controlled diameter. |
| Surface | • Producing mono-disperse materials and thin imprinted layers. |
| In-situ | • Requiring a single-step preparation strategy. |
Figure 2Chromatograms after the extraction of cocaine on plasma and saliva samples (a). The indicators in the plot: imprinted (A) and non-imprinted (B) of plasma spiked with cocaine compared to the blank plasma (C); imprinted (D) and non-imprinted (E) of saliva spiked with cocaine compared to the blank saliva (F). Chromatograms before and after extraction of real black tea samples (b). The indicators in the plot: unspiked black tea sample before (I) and after (II) extraction. Republished with permission from Bouvarel et al. and Rahimi et al. [71,72].
Comparison of molecularly imprinted chromatographic systems.
| Application | Template Molecule | Polymerization Type | Dynamic Range | Adsorption Capacity | Reference |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| HPLC-UV | Fluoxetine | Bulk | 0–1.5 mM | 800 µmol/g | [ |
| SDS-PAGE | Concanavalin A | Surface | 0–2.0 mg/mL | 305.2 mg/g | [ |
| NanoLC-UV | Cocaine | In-situ | 100–2000 ng/mL | Not available | [ |
| HPLC-UV | Quercetin | Sol-gel | 0.05–100 μg/mL | 19.98 ng/g | [ |
| HPLC | Norfloxacin | Precipitation | 1.0–200 μg/L | 32 mg/g | [ |
Figure 3Preparation of the erythromycin-imprinted electrochemical sensor (a) and cerebral dopamine neurotrophic factor protein-imprinted surface acoustic wave sensor (b). Republished with permission from Ayankojo et al. and Kidakova et al. [87,88].
Comparison of molecularly imprinted sensor systems.
| Sensor Type | Template Molecule | Polymerization Type | Dynamic Range | Limit of Detection | Reference |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Optical |
| Emulsion | 2 × 104–1 × 108 cfu/mL | 1.05 × 102 cfu/mL | [ |
| Optical | Aflatoxin B1 | In-situ | 20–100 ng/mL | 20 ng/mL | [ |
| Electrochemical | Erythromycin | Electro-polymerization | 12.8 nM–40 μM | 0.1 nM | [ |
| Surface acoustic wave | Cerebral dopamine neurotrophic factor protein | Surface | 5.0–300 ng/mL | 0.1 pg/mL | [ |
| Optical |
| Micro-contact | 101–106 cfu/mL | 0.57 cfu/mL | [ |
| Fluorescent | Tetrabromobisphenol-A | Sol-gel | 1.0–60 ng/mL | 3.6 ng/g | [ |
| Piezoelectric | Cannabinoids | Emulsion | 0.0005–1.0 ng/mL | 0.28 ng/mL | [ |
Figure 4The preparation process of the paper-based microfluidic systems for the determination of phenolic contaminants (a). The indicators in the plot: a complete chip under daylight (I), image of the six test sites on the chip under UV light (II), image of the test site through the hole of the top sampling layer under UV light (III), and schematic of the entire working process of the rotational chip and an image of rotational paper-based microfluidic chips placed and the detection process in the fluorescence spectrometer (IV). The preparation steps of the system to determine glycoprotein ovalbumin (b). Republished with permission from Qi et al. and Sun et al. [99,100].
Comparison of molecularly imprinted lab-on-a-chip systems.
| Combination | Template Molecule | Polymerization Type | Dynamic Range | Limit of Detection | Reference |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Fluorescent sensor | 2,4-dichloro phenoxyacetic acid | RAFT | 20 nM–5 μM | 20 nM | [ |
| Fluorescent sensor | Cu2+ | Surface | 0.11–58 μg/L | 0.035 μg/L | [ |
| Fluorescent sensor | 4-nitrophenol | Surface | 0.5–20 mg/L | 0.097 mg/L | [ |
| Electrochemical sensor | Ovalbumin | In-situ | 1 pg/mL–1000 ng/mL | 0.87 pg/mL | [ |