| Literature DB >> 32587383 |
Madeleine R Fries1, Daniel Stopper2, Maximilian W A Skoda3, Matthias Blum1, Christoph Kertzscher1, Alexander Hinderhofer1, Fajun Zhang1, Robert M J Jacobs4, Roland Roth5, Frank Schreiber6.
Abstract
In all areas related to protein adsorption, from medicine to biotechnology to heterogeneous nucleation, the question about its dominant forces and control arises. In this study, we used ellipsometry and quartz-crystal microbalance with dissipation (QCM-D), as well as density-functional theory (DFT) to obtain insight into the mechanism behind a wetting transition of a protein solution. We established that using multivalent ions in a net negatively charged globular protein solution (BSA) can either cause simple adsorption on a negatively charged interface, or a (diverging) wetting layer when approaching liquid-liquid phase separation (LLPS) by changing protein concentration (cp) or temperature (T). We observed that the water to protein ratio in the wetting layer is substantially larger compared to simple adsorption. In the corresponding theoretical model, we treated the proteins as limited-valence (patchy) particles and identified a wetting transition for this complex system. This wetting is driven by a bulk instability introduced by metastable LLPS exposed to an ion-activated attractive substrate.Entities:
Year: 2020 PMID: 32587383 PMCID: PMC7316800 DOI: 10.1038/s41598-020-66562-0
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Sci Rep ISSN: 2045-2322 Impact factor: 4.379
Figure 1Phase diagram. (a) Experimental phase diagram of BSA (c) and YCl3 (c) for various temperatures T. The lines c* and c** determine the boundaries of the region where the solution is turbid and dominated by large protein clusters (blue area, regime II). It broadens slightly with increasing T. The vertical arrows indicate the paths taken in the adsorption experiments. The LLPS region (gray-shaded areas) starts to occur at 20 °C and quickly broadens with increasing temperatures. Note that the gray-shaded areas do not display the coexisting densities but the regions at which LLPS was observed. The experimental measured values of the phase boundaries can be found in Table S1. (b) Theoretical phase diagram of BSA (c) and YCl3 (c) based on theoretical DFT calculations in ref. [20]. The obtained phase diagram does not contain an explicit temperature dependency, but can be compared to the experimental 20 °C data. The vertical arrows indicate the paths taken in the calculations for Fig. 3. Note that due to the intentionally simplified nature of the model with only few parameters the agreement with experiment is only semi-quantitative.
Figure 3DFT calculations. Protein layer thickness d versus c/c as obtained within DFT for different paths through the theoretically calculated phase diagram (Fig. 1(b)). The theoretical predictions of d agree qualitatively very well with those from experiments shown in Fig. 2(a), except for the path crossing the LLPS region. The divergence in the theory is due to the grand canonical ensemble. Note that due to the complexity of the system the canonical ensemble does not quantitatively describe the experiment. (inset) Protein density ρ(z) normalized to its value for z → ∞ corresponding to the adsorption maxima. When the LLPS region is crossed on the protein poor side, a macroscopically thick film of the protein rich phase can be found adsorbed at the attractive substrate (dark green line, c = 9.3 mg/ml).
Figure 2Ellipsometric protein adsorption measurements. (a) Protein layer thickness d versus c/c upon approaching the LLPS by changing the protein concentration (c = 5 mg/ml, 20 mg/ml and 50 mg/ml) obtained from ellipsometry measurements at 20 °C. (b) Protein adsorption as function of c/c upon approaching the LLPS by changing T (10 °C, 20 °C and 40 °C) via ellipsometry at 20 mg/ml. The adsorption curves show an increase in d by increasing c or T in regime II (blue-shaded). Regimes I and III are essentially unaffected by the change in c or T.
Figure 4Properties of adsorbed layer. (Top) Sketch illustrating the different layer formation of (a) a (monolayer) adsorption layer compared to (b) a thicker (wetting) layer. (c) QCM-D measurements of the adsorbed amount of proteins at the solid-liquid interface at c = 20 mg/ml and 40 °C. It illustrates the adsorption behaviour and its dependence on c. The black data points (d) show d after flushing the cell with H2O, thus, the irreversibly bound proteins. (d) Associated water (d). Since the QCM-D detects the adsorbed proteins plus its associated water, whereas ellipsometry fits the data to a volume fraction of 1, which is laterally averaged over the measured surface. Through the subtraction of d from d, the associated water surrounding the proteins can be calculated (usually this is rather illustrated with the difference in mass than thickness).