Understanding the binding mechanism between probe-functionalized magnetic nanoparticles (MNPs) and DNA targets or amplification products thereof is essential in the optimization of magnetic biosensors for the detection of DNA. Herein, the molecular interaction forming hybrid structures upon hybridization between DNA-functionalized magnetic nanoparticles, exhibiting Brownian relaxation, and rolling circle amplification products (DNA-coils) is investigated by the use of atomic force microscopy in a liquid environment and magnetic biosensors measuring the frequency-dependent magnetic response and the frequency-dependent modulation of light transmission. This approach reveals the qualitative and quantitative correlations between the morphological features of the hybrid structures with their magnetic response. The suppression of the high-frequency peak in the magnetic response and the appearance of a new peak at lower frequencies match the formation of larger sized assemblies upon increasing the concentration of DNA-coils. Furthermore, an increase of the DNA-coil concentration induces an increase in the number of MNPs per hybrid structure. This study provides new insights into the DNA-MNP binding mechanism, and its versatility is of considerable importance for the mechanistic characterization of other DNA-nanoparticle biosensor systems.
Understanding the binding mechanism between probe-functionalized magnetic nanoparticles (MNPs) and DNA targets or amplification products thereof is essential in the optimization of magnetic biosensors for the detection of DNA. Herein, the molecular interaction forming hybrid structures upon hybridization between DNA-functionalized magnetic nanoparticles, exhibiting Brownian relaxation, and rolling circle amplification products (DNA-coils) is investigated by the use of atomic force microscopy in a liquid environment and magnetic biosensors measuring the frequency-dependent magnetic response and the frequency-dependent modulation of light transmission. This approach reveals the qualitative and quantitative correlations between the morphological features of the hybrid structures with their magnetic response. The suppression of the high-frequency peak in the magnetic response and the appearance of a new peak at lower frequencies match the formation of larger sized assemblies upon increasing the concentration of DNA-coils. Furthermore, an increase of the DNA-coil concentration induces an increase in the number of MNPs per hybrid structure. This study provides new insights into the DNA-MNP binding mechanism, and its versatility is of considerable importance for the mechanistic characterization of other DNA-nanoparticle biosensor systems.
Entities:
Keywords:
DNA−magnetic nanoparticle hybrid structures; atomic force microscopy; magnetic biosensing; rolling circle amplification products; volume-amplified magnetic nanobead detection assay
Early diagnosis
and efficient
monitoring of pathogen spread are important features during the outbreaks
of emerging infectious diseases.[1,2] Hence, there is an increasing
demand for the development of highly specific, fast, and cost-efficient
biosensor technologies to meet present and future needs in different
fields, including medicine,[3−7] food safety applications,[8−10] and environmental monitoring.[11,12] The detection of different pathogens and biomarkers at the point-of-care
(POC) benefits from the rapid detection of specific biomolecules like
DNA sequences and proteins.Approaches based on acoustic,[13−15] electrochemical,[11,16,17] optical,[18−20] and magnetic[21−27] readout strategies have been used for the development of new POC
and out-of-lab biosensor technologies. In particular, analytical techniques
based on magnetic nanoparticles (MNPs) as readout labels have attracted
considerable attention in the past two decades because of the improvements
in the synthesis and functionalization of MNPs.[28−30] MNPs offer
unique advantages for biosensing. First, MNPs provide a sensing platform
with a low background signal, that is, a high signal-to-noise ratio
because most biological samples do not contribute with any detectable
magnetic background.[31] Second, MNPs exhibit
highly stable physical properties that can be detected using low-cost
instrumentation.[32,33] Third, MNPs are relatively inexpensive
to produce. Fourth, MNPs can be manipulated by external magnetic fields
providing the possibility to perform target enrichment before quantification,
thereby increasing the sensitivity of the biosensor.[34] Finally, MNPs typically consist of a core made of a magnetic
material and a non-magnetic biopolymer casing which provides colloidal
stability and enables surface functionalization with different biomolecular
probes, thereby allowing for their integration in sensing devices
to detect a wide range of biomarkers.[35−37]Two categories
have been established to classify magnetic biosensors
measuring the magnetic signal from MNPs.[38] The first category, the substrate-based technology, measures the
signal change induced by the binding of the biofunctionalized MNPs
to a sensor surface when the target molecule is present.[39−41] In contrast, the substrate-free (lab-on-a-bead) technology recognizes
the change of the dynamic (frequency-dependent) magnetic response
of the MNPs as they bind to the target or amplification products thereof.[42−44] Within this category, the volume-amplified magnetic nanobead detection
assay (VAM-NDA) is a promising MNP-based bioassay for low-cost and
easy-to-use diagnostic devices.[24,38,45−48] It measures the highly specific interaction between rolling circle
amplification products (DNA-coils) and the complementary sequences
of the oligonucleotide-functionalized MNPs once the sample is placed
in an oscillating magnetic field.[49] As
a result of such an interaction, DNA–MNP hybrid structures
are formed where each oligonucleotide-functionalized MNP binds specifically
the DNA-coils. Because of the increased size of DNA–MNP hybrid
structures in comparison to free MNPs, the frequency-dependent magnetic
response of the former will be shifted to lower frequency.The
unique features of atomic force microscopy (AFM) have been
exploited in the last decades for morphological investigations of
the nanostructured materials at a sub-nanometer resolution.[50,51] AFM is one of the several microscopy techniques that have been employed
to study the interaction between DNA and MNPs.[52−57] AFM provides three-dimensional images with a high spatial resolution,
comparable with that obtained by transmission electron microscopy
(TEM) but without damaging soft samples (i.e., DNA-coils). Besides,
unlike other well-established tools, for example, scanning electron
microscopy (SEM), TEM, and conventional optical microscopy, AFM does
not require coating or labeling of the sample, which is an advantage
for understanding the underlying binding mechanisms for the formation
of DNA–MNP hybrid structures. In particular, AFM has been used
to characterize the morphology of Escherichia coli DNA-coils formed by rolling circle amplification[58] and also to investigate the effect of an inert electrolyte
in the interaction between calf thymus double-stranded DNA (dsDNA)
and nonfunctionalized gold nanoparticles.[55] Additionally, this technique was used to demonstrate that the decrease
in the spin–spin relaxation time of water protons observed
in NMR measurements can be ascribed to the oligomerization of iron
oxide nanoparticles upon hybridization with the target DNA sequence.[56] However, most of these studies, similar to those
employing TEM, were performed by drying the samples before the measurements,
thus hindering detailed structural information that can be obtained
without the drying process. In this context, the proven versatility
of AFM of being capable to work under different environmental conditions
offers a unique opportunity to overcome this drawback. In particular,
by performing the AFM in a liquid environment, one avoids the capillary
forces that originate from the humid coverage of both the sample and
tip when performing the measurement in air. Liquid AFM is therefore
capable of producing high-quality AFM images which may contribute
to a better understanding of DNA–MNP hybrid formation under
conditions in which the VAM-NDA assay is performed.Understanding
the interaction between the functionalized nanoparticles
and target biomolecules is crucial for further improving the sensitivity
of magnetic biosensors; the present study aims to provide further
knowledge in this research field. For this purpose, we perform morphological
characterization of DNA–MNP hybrid structures at different
DNA-coil concentrations using AFM in liquid environments and correlate,
qualitatively and quantitatively, these results with the results obtained
from magnetic measurements in three different experimental setups.
Our approach provides imaging of DNA–MNP hybrid structures
in liquid environments with a high and unprecedented resolution. These
findings increase the understanding of the underlying physicochemical
mechanisms of magnetic biosensing in the VAM-NDA.
Results and Discussion
Figure shows a
schematic representation of the approach used in this study. DNA–MNPs
hybrid structures (Figure A) were deposited on mica substrates treated with the NiCl2 solution, and their morphological features were characterized
by AFM (Figure B).
As expected from the fact that the MNPs are of a multicore type, they
exhibit irregular shapes.[38] The size of
a DNA–MNP hybrid structure observed by AFM was defined aswhere L and l are the long axis and short axis
lengths, respectively (Figure C). The AFM data
were compared with results from frequency-dependent magnetic measurements
of samples containing hybrid structures (Figure D).
Figure 1
Schematic description of the methodology followed
in the present
study. Functionalized-MNPs are incubated with DNA-coils to form hybrid
structures (A). DNA–MNP assemblies are then deposited onto
mica substrates and characterized by AFM in liquid (B). In (C), the
approach to determine the hybrid sizes from the AFM imaging is presented
using two representative examples of the structures formed for 0 pM
(free MNPs) and 200 pM of DNA-coils (DNA–MNP hybrids). The
average value between the long (L) and short (l) axis is used to estimate the hybrid size from AFM measurements.
The results are compared with the magnetic response of the DNA–MNP
assemblies (D), where the high-frequency and low-frequency peaks (HFP
and LFP, respectively) are used to calculate the hydrodynamic diameter
(Dh) of the hybrids.
Schematic description of the methodology followed
in the present
study. Functionalized-MNPs are incubated with DNA-coils to form hybrid
structures (A). DNA–MNP assemblies are then deposited onto
mica substrates and characterized by AFM in liquid (B). In (C), the
approach to determine the hybrid sizes from the AFM imaging is presented
using two representative examples of the structures formed for 0 pM
(free MNPs) and 200 pM of DNA-coils (DNA–MNP hybrids). The
average value between the long (L) and short (l) axis is used to estimate the hybrid size from AFM measurements.
The results are compared with the magnetic response of the DNA–MNP
assemblies (D), where the high-frequency and low-frequency peaks (HFP
and LFP, respectively) are used to calculate the hydrodynamic diameter
(Dh) of the hybrids.The morphological characterization of DNA–MNP hybrid structures,
prepared from four different DNA-coil concentrations (0, 2, 20, and
200 pM) and a constant MNP concentration (100 μg/mL), shows
a trend for hybrid structures to cluster with increasing DNA-coil
concentration (Figure ). In particular, the formation of larger assemblies was observed
for DNA-coil concentrations of 20 and 200 pM. In contrast, the hybrids
formed in the case of 2 pM DNA concentration resembled the structures
found in the negative control sample (NC, 0 pM). The AFM micrographs
also show the progressive accumulation of DNA-coils onto the mica
substrate with increasing DNA-coil concentration. A clean background
was observed in the absence of DNA-coils. Noteworthy, the highly specific
and strong (base-paired) interactions between the DNA-coils and the
oligonucleotide-functionalized MNPs results in DNA–MNP hybrid
structures that can withstand several hours of AFM measurements without
damage to their morphologies. Additional AFM images of the hybrid
structures are shown in Figure S1 and S2.
Figure 2
AFM images of DNA–MNP hybrid structures formed in the absence
(A) and the presence of randomly coiled DNA (B–D). The hybrid
size increases with the increase of DNA-coil concentration showing
cluster formation for the 20 pM (C) and 200 pM (D) samples. This effect
is not observed for the 2 pM (B) samples where the hybrid structures,
albeit showing a slight increase in the DAFM values, resemble the unbound MNPs in the absence of DNA-coils (A).
AFM images of DNA–MNP hybrid structures formed in the absence
(A) and the presence of randomly coiled DNA (B–D). The hybrid
size increases with the increase of DNA-coil concentration showing
cluster formation for the 20 pM (C) and 200 pM (D) samples. This effect
is not observed for the 2 pM (B) samples where the hybrid structures,
albeit showing a slight increase in the DAFM values, resemble the unbound MNPs in the absence of DNA-coils (A).Detailed information on the mechanism of interaction
between MNPs
and DNA-coils was deduced from micrographs acquired at higher lateral
resolution. At low DNA-coil concentration (2 pM), only a few DNA-coils
interacting with MNPs can be observed, binding externally to or coiling
around MNPs (Figure A). As expected, an increasing number of DNA-coils binds to each
MNP with increasing DNA-coil concentration. Also, assemblies where
one MNP is bound to several DNA-coils were detected (Figure B,C). The DNA-coils with bound
MNPs were observed as coiled molecules as well as thread-like objects
(Figure B). In the
case of 200 pM DNA-coil concentration, the DNA-coils even acted as
″bridges″ between the different assemblies (Figure C). Figure D–F provides a schematic
illustration of the MNP-DNA-coil interaction for different DNA-coil
concentrations based on the obtained AFM results.
Figure 3
AFM micrographs at higher
magnifications of the DNA–MNPs
hybrid structures formed in the presence of randomly coiled DNA (A–C).
MNPs scarcely interact with DNA-coils at 2 pM (A). This interaction
is favored by increasing the DNA-coil concentration to 20 pM (B) and
200 pM (C) where more DNA-coils per MNPs are observed. The AFM images
confirm the cluster formation at higher DNA concentrations showing
hybrid structures containing a larger number of DNA-coils, which in
some cases act as “bridges” between assemblies. Some
DNA-coils are highlighted with white arrows. The color bars correspond
to a Z range of 10.0 nm. Scale bars: 200 nm. Schematic representations
of typical arrangements of hybrid structures as observed by the AFM
images are also presented (D–F).
AFM micrographs at higher
magnifications of the DNA–MNPs
hybrid structures formed in the presence of randomly coiled DNA (A–C).
MNPs scarcely interact with DNA-coils at 2 pM (A). This interaction
is favored by increasing the DNA-coil concentration to 20 pM (B) and
200 pM (C) where more DNA-coils per MNPs are observed. The AFM images
confirm the cluster formation at higher DNA concentrations showing
hybrid structures containing a larger number of DNA-coils, which in
some cases act as “bridges” between assemblies. Some
DNA-coils are highlighted with white arrows. The color bars correspond
to a Z range of 10.0 nm. Scale bars: 200 nm. Schematic representations
of typical arrangements of hybrid structures as observed by the AFM
images are also presented (D–F).The DNA–MNP hybrid size distribution was obtained by analyzing
a large number of hybrid structures (N ≥ 110)
and by acquiring more than 10 AFM images for each DNA–MNP hybrid
structure. The average size DAFM of the
structures increased from 108 ± 41 nm in the absence of DNA-coils
to 191 ± 95 nm for the 2 pM sample. In the case of hybrids prepared
from DNA-coil concentrations of 20 and 200 pM, the DAFM values were 280 ± 125 and 607 ± 307 nm,
respectively. This result was expected considering that the number
of DNA-coils bound to MNPs should increase with increasing DNA-coil
concentration, consequently increasing the size of the hybrid structures.An important insight into the binding mechanism of DNA-coils with
MNPs was deduced from the fitting of the DAFM histograms with Gaussian functions (Figure ). In the absence of DNA-coils, the MNPs
show a DAFM distribution centered around
100 nm (Figure A).
The intensity of this peak decreases with increasing DNA-coil concentration
(Figure B–D),
showing a remarkable difference between 0 and 200 pM DNA-coil concentrations.
The peak located at ∼100 nm for the latter was drastically
diminished (Figure D). Interestingly, a second peak in the size distribution, peaking
at around 300 nm, emerged for the 2 pM sample (highlighted by a red
arrow in Figure B).
The same behavior was observed for the assemblies prepared from the
20 pM DNA-coil concentration sample (Figure C). In this case, the peak amplitude for
hybrid structures having sizes around 300 nm was higher indicating
a higher probability of finding such sizes for this sample. Furthermore,
for the 20 pM sample, the number of hybrid structures having a size
of 100 nm or 300 nm, showed similar values in terms of frequency.
A more complex scenario was observed in the case of the 200 pM sample. Figure D shows a wide DAFM distribution, exhibiting peaks around 170,
300, and 750 nm. The number of DNA–MNP hybrid structures of
the population centered at 750 nm represents 72% (because it is a
broad peak ranging from 350 to 1500 nm) of the total size distribution;
however, the peak amplitude is not predominant over the other peaks.
The output from fitting Gaussian functions to the DAFM distributions are summarized in Table .
Figure 4
DAFM distributions,
fitted with Gaussian
functions, of the different hybrid structures. In the absence of DNA-coils
(A) only one size distribution, attributed to free (unbound) MNPs,
is observed, while a second size population around 300 nm (red arrows)
emerges from the 2 pM sample (B). This finding is also perceived for
the 20 pM sample (C) where both size populations display similar probabilities.
The DAFM distribution is broader in the
case of the 200 pM sample (D).
Table 1
Comparison between the Gaussian-Fitted DAFM Values and the Calculated Hydrodynamic Diameter Dh derived from the AC Susceptometry Outputs
DAFMa (nm)
DynoMag Dh (nm)
Optomagnetic Dh (nm)
SQUID Dh (nm)
[DNA] (pM)
peak 1
peak 2
peak 3
HFP
LFP
HFP
LFP
HFP
LFP
0
101 ± 80
171 ± 13
112 ± 16
163 ± 16
2
145 ± 91
315 ± 84
171 ± 13
112 ± 16
163 ± 16
20
180 ± 84
343 ± 106
171 ± 13
112 ± 16
331 ± 48
163 ± 16
200
170 ± 18
280 ± 173
749 ± 415
171 ± 13
112 ± 16
444 ± 63
163 ± 16
792 ± 82
(Peak mean value
± FWHM).
DAFM distributions,
fitted with Gaussian
functions, of the different hybrid structures. In the absence of DNA-coils
(A) only one size distribution, attributed to free (unbound) MNPs,
is observed, while a second size population around 300 nm (red arrows)
emerges from the 2 pM sample (B). This finding is also perceived for
the 20 pM sample (C) where both size populations display similar probabilities.
The DAFM distribution is broader in the
case of the 200 pM sample (D).(Peak mean value
± FWHM).To assess
whether our findings could be potentially applied for
optimizing the performance of MNP-based biosensors, we recorded the
frequency-dependent complex magnetization for the same four DNA-coil
concentrations used in the AFM study (0, 2, 20 and 200 pM). Three
different experimental platforms exploiting volumetric sensing were
used. Since the MNPs used in our study exhibit blocked magnetic moments,
the physical rotation of the particle (Brownian relaxation) is the
dominating relaxation mechanism. The characteristic frequency for
Brownian relaxation dynamics, for MNPs having a mean hydrodynamic
diameter (Dh), is expressed aswhere
η is the dynamic viscosity of
the carrier liquid and kBT is the thermal energy.[24,26,27,59]The frequency-dependent
imaginary part of the complex magnetic
susceptibility (χ″) exhibits a peak in the frequency
range between 75 and 121 Hz (Figure A). As expected, the peak amplitude diminishes with
increasing DNA-coil concentration because of that the number of immobilized
MNPs becomes higher. A similar DNA-coil concentration dependence was
observed when the real part (V2′) of the complex second
harmonic signal of the transmitted light intensity was measured. The
immobilization of MNPs to the DNA coils affected the amplitude of
the peak found at ∼160 Hz, significantly decreasing the V2′/V0 values (Figure B). Cluster formation was detected for the
20 pM sample from the appearance of a new peak between 4 and 8 Hz.
This peak was also observed for the 200 pM sample and shifted toward
lower frequency values (1.5–3.5 Hz).
Figure 5
Frequency-dependent magnetic
response for the different hybrid
structures (A–C). Out-of-phase component (imaginary part) of
the AC susceptibility versus frequency measured using a DynoMag susceptometer
(A) and SQUID magnetometer (C), as well as the frequency-dependent
in-phase component of the complex second harmonic of the transmitted
light measured with the optomagnetic readout (B). A drop in the signal
because of a decreasing concentration of free MNPs with the increase
of DNA-coil concentration is confirmed at higher relaxation frequencies
for all the readouts. A new peak at lower relaxation frequencies is
resolved for 20 and 200 pM samples in an optomagnetic sensor (B),
while this peak is only observed for the 200 pM sample in the SQUID
measurements (C).
Frequency-dependent magnetic
response for the different hybrid
structures (A–C). Out-of-phase component (imaginary part) of
the AC susceptibility versus frequency measured using a DynoMag susceptometer
(A) and SQUID magnetometer (C), as well as the frequency-dependent
in-phase component of the complex second harmonic of the transmitted
light measured with the optomagnetic readout (B). A drop in the signal
because of a decreasing concentration of free MNPs with the increase
of DNA-coil concentration is confirmed at higher relaxation frequencies
for all the readouts. A new peak at lower relaxation frequencies is
resolved for 20 and 200 pM samples in an optomagnetic sensor (B),
while this peak is only observed for the 200 pM sample in the SQUID
measurements (C).To evaluate if the low-frequency
peak in the optomagnetic spectra
can be detected as a corresponding relaxation peak in the complex
AC susceptibility spectrum, the imaginary part of the complex magnetization
(m″) was acquired using a superconducting
quantum interference device (SQUID) magnetometer (Figure C) because the frequency range
of the AC susceptometer is limited to 1 Hz with considerable influence
of measurement noise between 1 and 5 Hz. A frequency range between
0.1 and 1 kHz was used in order to measure the low-frequency peak. Figure C shows the decrease
in the amplitude of the peak found at high frequencies (120–180
Hz) by increasing the DNA-coil concentration. The low-frequency peak
located at 1 Hz was detected in the 200 pM sample. However, no peak
at lower frequencies was resolved for the 20 pM sample.Considering
the presence of peaks at high and low frequencies (denoted
HFP and LFP, respectively), the Dh of
the different hybrid structures was calculated using eq . Here, it was assumed that the
DNA–MNP assemblies have spherical shapes. Noteworthy, in the
case of the optomagnetic measurements, the Brownian relaxation frequency
at low magnetic fields in the linear response regime is related to
the peak frequency as[59]Table summarizes
the corresponding Dh values. The difference
in the DynoMag and SQUID values for Dh is within the limits of experimental error, while the optomagnetic
values are considerably smaller corresponding to a larger than expected
value for the extracted Brownian relaxation frequency. The explanation
for this difference can be found in the magnetic field amplitudes
used in the different measurements. While the DynoMag and SQUID measurements
use a magnetic field amplitude of 0.5 and 0.4 mT, respectively, the
optomagnetic measurement uses a considerably larger value for the
magnetic field amplitude (2.6 mT) to increase the signal-to-noise
ratio. The used field amplitude is outside the linear response regime
for the measurement, resulting in V2′/V0 versus frequency curves shifted toward a higher frequency.[60,61] The optomagnetic measurement thus overestimates the Brownian relaxation
frequency (underestimates the value for Dh).The analytical performance of AC susceptometry methods depends
on the magnetic readout sensitivity and the interplay between MNPs
and the target molecules. Optimal magnetic biosensors should have
a short total assay time, a low contamination risk, and the potential
for automation as crucial properties for in situ decentralized
diagnostics.[62,63] Furthermore, the detection of
low concentrations of MNPs is essential to improve the sensitivity
of the bioassay.[64] Experimental evidence
indicates that the interaction between MNPs and DNA coils has a primary
role in optimizing DNA-based magnetic biosensors because its comprehension
is required for the proper understanding of the underlying detection
mechanism.[23,24,38]The first important finding of the present study is that an
increased
DNA-coil concentration induces an increase of the arithmetic DAFM values. The DAFM values obtained for the different DNA-coil concentrations followed
the ranking DAFM(0 pM) < DAFM(2 pM) < DAFM(20 pM)
< DAFM(200 pM), which is in good correlation
with the decrease of the HFP amplitude with increasing DNA-coil concentration
and with the trend observed in the dynamic light scattering (DLS)
measurements (Figure S3). Moreover, the
cluster formation, mainly observed for the samples with DNA-coil concentrations
of 20 and 200 pM (Figures C,D, and S1), is in good agreement
with the large decrease of the HFP amplitudes recorded in the different
magnetic readout methods (Figure ). The formation of such large assemblies was also
detected as the appearance of an LFP located at frequencies below
10 Hz for both the 20 and 200 pM samples (Figure B,C). The latter was also observed in the
DLS measurements with the appearance of a peak at larger hydrodynamic
diameters (Figure S3). The formation of
such assemblies was not observed in the case of the 2 pM sample, neither
in the AFM or the magnetic measurements, resembling more the results
found in the NC sample. All these observations lead us to conclude
that there exists a strong correlation between (i) the DNA-coil concentration,
(ii) the average size of the hybrid structures determined by AFM,
and (iii) the amplitude of the HFP commonly associated with the free
(unbound) MNPs. It must be considered that the length and conformation
of the DNA targets may play a role in the morphology of DNA–MNP
hybrids. However, no significant differences were observed in the
AC susceptometry results nor in the DNA–MNP hybrid morphology
when the 200 pM samples were investigated using three different DNA-coil
lengths (Figure S4). The latter confirms
previous observations where long amplification time was not required
to detect low concentrations of target DNA.Another interesting
observation is the agreement between the Gaussian-fitted DAFM distributions and the calculated Dh values derived from the different magnetic
measurements (Table ). This result can be ascribed to the approach employed in this study.
First, the selection of the ScanAsyst mode to perform AFM imaging
in liquid provides high-quality images avoiding imaging artifacts.
Second, the treatment of the mica substrate with Ni2+ cations
implies weak electrostatic attachment of the DNA coils and DNA–MNP
hybrid structures to the surface, which favors AFM imaging of the
assemblies under conditions similar to those of magnetic biosensor
measurements. Finally, the deposition protocol that was performed
without drying the samples and carried out during the first 2 h after
hybridization, thereby avoiding the sedimentation of large aggregates
observed by naked eye 3 h after hybridization in samples with higher
DNA-coil concentration. To the best of our knowledge, this is the
first time that such an agreement between Gaussian-fitted DAFM distributions and the Dh values is reported, clearly indicating that our approach
can be established as a methodology to study the interaction between
DNA coils and functionalized MNPs in volumetric sensors.An
important outcome arising from our study is that an increase
in DNA-coil concentration produces an increase in the number of MNPs
per hybrid structure. Because the MNP concentration was kept constant
for all four samples, an increase in DNA-coil concentration implies
an increase in the number of DNA-coils available for each MNP. The
latter is confirmed by the excess of DNA coils found in the background
of the AFM micrographs (Figures , 3, and S1), and it is in agreement with previous findings.[24,38] From our AFM results, hybrid structures where one DNA coil binds
to one MNP were found for the 2 pM sample (Figures B, 3A). A clear increase
in the number of DNA coils per MNP was observed for the 20 and 200
pM samples as well as cluster formation by hybrid intergrowth in the
latter (Figures , 3, and S1). Moreover,
dividing the DAFM values of the different
hybrid structures by the DAFM value of
the free MNPs (0 pM sample), we obtain 1.7, 2.6, and 5.6 for the 2,
20, and 200 pM samples, respectively. The latter can be considered
as an indication of the number of MNPs per hybrid structure, implying
the presence of 1–2 MNPs per hybrid structure in the case of
the 2 pM sample. This number increased to 2–3 and 5–6
MNPs in the cases of the 20 and 200 pM samples, respectively. Our
results are in good agreement with previous findings, where it was
demonstrated by transmission electron microscopy that each hybrid
structure contained two MNPs.[38]To
explain all these findings, we considered two different scenarios.
The first assumes the DNA coils bound to one MNP as the cause of the
increase of DAFM for hybrid structures,
and consequently, the decrease of the HFP amplitude, upon increasing
the DNA-coil concentration. This hypothesis has long been recognized
by the scientific community.[24,38,52] However, it does not explain the morphologies of the hybrid structures
found in samples with higher DNA-coil concentrations. In the second
scenario, it is conjectured that an increase in DNA-coil concentration
during the hybridization promotes the binding between MNPs and DNA-coils
already bound to other MNPs. The latter is supported by the DNA “bridges”
linking smaller assemblies observed for the 200 pM samples (Figures D, 3C). According to our AFM results, such DNA “bridges”
may be formed as follows. At a low concentration (2 pM), DNA-coils
are either wrapped around MNPs (cf. Figure D upper right) or bound to MNPs without saturation
of all binding sites (cf. Figure D lower left). The former may explain the slight increase
of the DAFM values corresponding to peak
1 (cf. Table and Figure ). Increasing the
number of DNA coils (20 pM) will result in an increasing number of
DNA coils bound to each MNP. Furthermore, the coupling between free
MNPs and DNA coils already bound to another MNP (cf. Figure E) is also favored. This explains
the formation of small DNA–MNP hybrid structures containing
two or more MNPs, which is consistent with the appearance of peak
2 (cf. Figure and Table). Noteworthy, the
formation of such assemblies is not excluded for the 2 pM samples.
However, because the DNA-coil concentration is lower, the probability
of finding such structures is lower compared to the 20 pM samples.
At higher DNA-coil concentrations (200 pM), large hybrid structures
tend to form by the aggregation of smaller DNA–MNP hybrids
(cf. Figure F). DNA
coils act as ″bridges″ between different DNA–MNP
hybrids. In one case, the hybrids are connected via free DNA coils
that bind to MNPs which are embedded in different DNA–MNP hybrids
(hybrid bound to free DNA bound to hybrid). In another case, the aggregation
results from the binding between a DNA coil already coupled to a DNA–MNP
hybrid and a MNP with the available binding sites present in another
hybrid (hybrid bound to hybrid). Considering all the above, we conclude
that a combination of both scenarios provides a better comprehension
of the binding mechanisms between MNPs and DNA coils, where the diffusion
of DNA coils and MNPs seems to play a key role.
Conclusions
In
this work, we applied AFM in liquid environments to characterize,
with unprecedented resolution, the morphological features of hybrid
structures formed by the interaction between MNPs and four different
DNA-coil concentrations. We showed that higher DNA-coil concentrations
induce cluster formation, which is related to the decrease of the
magnetic response at frequencies corresponding to the Brownian relaxation
frequency of free MNPs. By correlating the results derived from the
AFM analysis with the outputs from the three different magnetic readout
systems, we have provided a better understanding of the binding characteristics
between MNPs and DNA coils in the VAM-NDA. Because of the versatility
of the tools employed in our approach, it may be extended to other
applications where the interaction mechanism between nanoparticles
and target molecules or amplification products thereof must be addressed.
Furthermore, we also provide our interpretation of the binding mechanisms
occurring between MNPs and DNA coils indicating that the diffusion
of DNA coils and MNPs should be considered for future optimizations
of the VAM-NDA.
Experimental Section
Materials
Adenosine triphosphate (ATP), bovine serum
albumin (BSA), deoxynucleoside triphosphate (dNTP), T4 ligase, Φ29
DNA polymerase, and reaction buffer for Φ29 DNA polymerase were
purchased from Thermo Scientific (Vilnius, Lithuania). Vibrio choleraeoligonucleotide sequences were acquired
from Biomers GmbH (Ulm, Germany). All used oligonucleotide sequences
are presented in Table S1. Streptavidin
functionalized 100 nm Bionized NanoFerrite (BNF)-starch particles
(cluster-type, product code 10-19-102) were purchased from Micromod
Partikeltechnologie GmbH (Rostock, Germany). Phosphate-buffered saline
(PBS, ultrapure grade) was purchased from AMRESCO (Solon, USA). Nickel
chloride (NiCl2), sodium chloride (NaCl), ethylenediaminetetraacetic
acid (EDTA), ultrapure 1 M Tris–HCl (pH 8.0) buffer, Tween
20, and HEPES were purchased from Sigma-Aldrich.
Preparation
of DNA-Coils
The target recognition, ligation,
and RCA were performed according to previously detailed protocols.[24,46] Details are given in Supporting Information. A stock solution of RCA products (4 nM, considering the initial
concentration of the padlock probes) was stored at 4 °C for use.
Conjugation of Magnetic Nanoparticles with Detection Probes
A stock solution of MNPs (10 mg/mL, 3.2 g/ccm, 6 × 1012 beads/mL) conjugated with a 60-fold oligonucleotide excess
was produced following a protocol described elsewhere.[24] Briefly, 40 μL of streptavidin-modified
BNF-starch particles were washed twice in a washing buffer (10 mM
Tris–HCl (pH 8.0), 5 mM EDTA, 0.1% (v/v) Tween 20, and 0.1
M NaCl) using a magnetic separation stand. Noteworthy, the MNPs consist
of a 75–80% (w/w) cluster-type core of magnetite and a cross-linked
shell of hydroxyl starch possessing a magnetization of 49 Am2/kg iron (H = 80 kA/m) and a saturation magnetization
higher than 76 Am2/kg iron (H > 800
kA/m).
The MNPs have a biotin binding capacity of >300 pmol/mg iron),
and
the particles were conjugated by adding 2.49 μL of a 10 μM
biotinylated oligonucleotide probe (Table S1) solution followed by 15 min of incubation at room temperature.
Finally, the MNP suspension was washed twice with 1× PBS buffer
and resuspended to a final concentration of 10 mg/mL in PBS. The MNP
suspension was stored at 4 °C until use.
Preparation of DNA–MNP
Hybrid Structures
For
the detection of V. cholerae DNA coils,
20 μL of oligonucleotide tagged MNPs (1 mg/mL) were gently mixed
with 20 μL of DNA-coil solution (0, 20, 200, and 2000 pM, defined
by the initial concentration of the padlock probes) in an Eppendorf
tube. The mixture was incubated for 20 min at 55 °C in a heating
block and, finally, diluted with 160 μL of PBS to a final volume
of 200 μL. Noteworthy, the DNA concentrations were chosen based
on the dose–response curves obtained from the magnetic outputs
(see Figure S5). For instance, the 2 pM
sample was picked to represent samples below the linear region of
the dose response curve; while the 20 and 200 pM samples were chosen
to represent samples in the linear and saturation regions of the dose
response curve, respectively. The 0 pM sample (absence of DNA) depicts
the characteristics of free MNPs.
Deposition Protocol for
Hybrid Structures
The negatively
charged mica substrates (G250-1, Agar Scientific Ltd., Essex, U.K.)
were Ni2+-treated to immobilize the DNA–MNP hybrid
structures. A 20 μL aliquot of a buffered 10 mM NiCl2 solution was deposited for 1 min onto a freshly cleaved mica substrate
fixed to a glass slide. The substrate was then thoroughly rinsed with
pure water (MilliQ, Millipore) and promptly dried with filter paper.
Subsequently, a 20 μL droplet containing the hybrid structures
was incubated for 1 min. Afterward, the sample was gently rinsed with
1 mL of imaging buffer (2 mM NiCl2, 20 mM HEPES, pH 7.4).
Noteworthy, the hybrid structures were deposited during the first
2 h after hybridization on the same day of their preparation to avoid
cluster sedimentation.
AFM Imaging
The size and morphology
characterization
of the hybrid structures was conducted using a Bruker Dimension Icon
atomic force microscope (Bruker Dimension Icon, Billerica, MA, USA).
ScanAsyst mode in a liquid environment was employed for the measurements.
V-shaped SNL silicon nitride cantilevers (Bruker, Billerica, MA, USA),
with a typical tip curvature radius of 2–12 nm, nominal spring
constant of 0.24 N/m, and resonance frequency in air ranging from
40 to 75 kHz were used. Scan areas of 10 × 10 μm2 (1024 points per line) and 2.5 × 2.5 μm2 (2048
points per line) were analyzed. The AFM images were processed using
Gwyddion 2.54 software. The AFM size of the hybrid structures DAFM was determined by measuring the long axis
and short axis lengths (see Figure ) according to eq .The statistical analysis was performed on more than
110 hybrid structures for each DNA-coil concentration. It must be
noted that the AFM imaging of the hybrid structures was always performed
within the same day of their preparation.
AC Susceptometry
Dynamic magnetic measurements of the
hybrid structures were carried out at room temperature using three
different readout systems. A DynoMag AC susceptometer (Acreo Swedish
ICT, Sweden), an optomagnetic measurement setup (details are given
in Supporting Information), and a Superconducting Quantum Interference
Device (SQUID) magnetometer (QD MPMS XL, Quantum Design, USA) were
used to evaluate the frequency-dependent magnetic response for the
different hybrid structures. In the case of the DynoMag setup, the
frequency-dependent magnetic susceptibility (χ = χ′
– iχ″) was measured by acquiring
25 logarithmically equidistant points within the frequency range of
1 Hz to 100 kHz using an AC induction amplitude of 0.5 mT. The frequency
range in the case of the optomagnetic measurement setup was 0.1 Hz
to 10 kHz, and the AC induction amplitude was set at 2.6 mT to acquire
40 data points in 900 s. In this case, the modulation of the transmitted
light intensity versus frequency for the hybrid structures was measured
as the in- and out-of-phase second harmonic components of the photodetector
voltage signal by applying the AC magnetic field perpendicular to
the laser beam. For the SQUID measurements, the frequency range was
0.1 Hz to 1 kHz and the AC induction amplitude was 0.4 mT. Thirty-two
logarithmically equidistant points were acquired. Details of the working
principles for each of the used magnetic sensors are found elsewhere.[21,23,46,48,49] Sample volumes of 200 μL, taken from
each one of the different hybrid structure suspensions, were pipetted
into a 1 mL shell vial (Cat. No 548-0042, VWR international, Germany)
and into a disposable UV-transparent cuvette (REF 67.758.001, SARSTEDT,
Nümbrecht, Germany) for the DynoMag and optomagnetic measurements,
respectively. In the case of SQUID measurements, the sample volume
was 25 μL pipetted into a Teflon capsule. A minimum of three
independent samples per DNA-coil concentration were analyzed for each
magnetic measurement.
Authors: Yong Hu; Carmen M Domínguez; Jens Bauer; Simone Weigel; Alessa Schipperges; Claude Oelschlaeger; Norbert Willenbacher; Stephan Keppler; Martin Bastmeyer; Stefan Heißler; Christof Wöll; Tim Scharnweber; Kersten S Rabe; Christof M Niemeyer Journal: Nat Commun Date: 2019-12-04 Impact factor: 14.919