Metal-organic frameworks (MOFs) are a class of porous nanomaterials that have been extensively studied as enzyme immobilization substrates. During in situ immobilization, MOF nucleation is driven by biomolecules with low isoelectric points. Investigation of how biomolecules control MOF self-assembly mechanisms on the molecular level is key to designing nanomaterials with desired physical and chemical properties. Here, we demonstrate how molecular modifications of bovine serum albumin (BSA) with fluorescein isothiocyanate (FITC) can affect MOF crystal size, morphology, and encapsulation efficiency. Final crystal properties are characterized using scanning electron microscopy (SEM), powder X-ray diffraction (PXRD), fluorescent microscopy, and fluorescence spectroscopy. To probe MOF self-assembly, in situ experiments were performed using cryogenic transmission electron microscopy (cryo-TEM) and X-ray diffraction (XRD). Biophysical characterization of BSA and FITC-BSA was performed using ζ potential, mass spectrometry, circular dichroism studies, fluorescence spectroscopy, and Fourier transform infrared (FTIR) spectroscopy. The combined data reveal that protein folding and stability within amorphous precursors are contributing factors in the rate, extent, and mechanism of crystallization. Thus, our results suggest molecular modifications as promising methods for fine-tuning protein@MOFs' nucleation and growth.
Metal-organic frameworks (MOFs) are a class of porous nanomaterials that have been extensively studied as enzyme immobilization substrates. During in situ immobilization, MOF nucleation is driven by biomolecules with low isoelectric points. Investigation of how biomolecules control MOF self-assembly mechanisms on the molecular level is key to designing nanomaterials with desired physical and chemical properties. Here, we demonstrate how molecular modifications of bovine serum albumin (BSA) with fluorescein isothiocyanate (FITC) can affect MOF crystal size, morphology, and encapsulation efficiency. Final crystal properties are characterized using scanning electron microscopy (SEM), powder X-ray diffraction (PXRD), fluorescent microscopy, and fluorescence spectroscopy. To probe MOF self-assembly, in situ experiments were performed using cryogenic transmission electron microscopy (cryo-TEM) and X-ray diffraction (XRD). Biophysical characterization of BSA and FITC-BSA was performed using ζ potential, mass spectrometry, circular dichroism studies, fluorescence spectroscopy, and Fourier transform infrared (FTIR) spectroscopy. The combined data reveal that protein folding and stability within amorphous precursors are contributing factors in the rate, extent, and mechanism of crystallization. Thus, our results suggest molecular modifications as promising methods for fine-tuning protein@MOFs' nucleation and growth.
Living systems have evolved enzymes to
have remarkable catalytic
efficiency and stereoselectivity.[1] However,
most enzymes evolved in specific environments that did not promote
enzymes with high thermal or chemical stability. Consequently, the
implementation of enzymes into industrial applications, which are
typically performed in nonphysiological environments, has been limited
by enzyme stability.[2,3] Enormous efforts have been devoted
to enhancing the stability and recyclability of enzymes by immobilizing
them onto supporting structures to significantly reduce the energy
and economic cost of the chemical industry.[4,5] One
promising support strategy utilizes metal–organic frameworks
(MOFs) due to their large surface area, simplistic synthetic conditions,
and tunable pore and crystal sizes.[5−9] MOFs consist of coordinated metal ions and organic ligands building
blocks that form protective frameworks for biomolecules.[10−12]Enzymes can be integrated into MOF systems through in situ
approaches
in which the crystal forms in the presence of a protein,[6,7] or post-synthetic approaches, where the protein is incorporated
after crystallization by surface attachment,[13] pore entrapment,[14] or covalent linkage.[15,16] In situ approaches are advantageous due to their mild synthetic
conditions, simplistic synthetic procedures, and typically higher
encapsulation efficiencies (EE%).[7,17] The primary
challenge with the in situ approach is understanding how the biomolecules
affect the nucleation and growth of the MOF crystals and become incorporated
into frameworks. Low isoelectric point (pI) (<7) proteins have
been shown to effectively initiate the nucleation of zeolitic imidazole
framework-8 (ZIF-8) when precursors are below supersaturation conditions.[18] High pI (>7) proteins cannot initiate nucleation,
but molecular modifications of proteins can be used to lower the pI
and promote nucleation.[18] However, the
role molecular modification and protein folding play in controlling
crystal properties such as size and morphology has not been established.
These properties are essential for the catalytic performance of protein@MOFs
as they determine the accessibility of enzymes to substrates. For
example, when an enzyme is located throughout the crystal, smaller
crystal sizes are desired to reduce the diffusion barrier and allow
the substrate to reach the internal enzymes.[19] Furthermore, a recent study demonstrated that variation in the protein@MOF
crystal structure directly affects enzymatic activity, which supports
the need for understanding nucleation and growth mechanisms to optimize
protein@MOFs’ properties.[20]Here, we demonstrate how molecular modification of a protein affects
encapsulation efficiency, crystal size, and morphology of protein@MOFs.
One of the most common molecular modifications for proteins in MOF
systems is a fluorescent tag such as fluorescein isothiocyanate (FITC),
which aids in determining the encapsulation efficiency and location
of the protein in a crystal.[6,17] In our studies, bovine
serum albumin (BSA) and FITC-BSA are used as model proteins as they
have been well studied and are inexpensive.[21−23] Biophysical
characterization of the proteins was performed using mass spectrometry,
circular dichroism, and ζ potential measurements. To compare
final protein@MOF crystals, scanning electron microscopy (SEM), transmission
electron microscopy (TEM), fluorescent microscopy, powder X-ray diffraction
(PXRD), and fluorescence spectrometry are used. Encapsulation efficiencies
of BSA and FITC-BSA are determined using a developed procedure to
measure intrinsic tryptophan fluorescence by accounting for potential
interaction between protein and MOF precursors. To evaluate how the
FITC modification affects the nucleation and growth mechanism, cryogenic
TEM (cryo-TEM) and in situ XRD are performed.
Results
BSA@ZIF-8 and FITC-BSA@ZIF-8 Syntheses
Stock solutions
of 2-methylimidazole (HmIm) (5600 mM, 2800 mM, 1400 mM, 700 mM, and
320 mM, 0.5 mL), zinc acetate (40 mM, 1 mL), and protein (10 mg/mL,
5 mg/mL, and 2.5 mg/mL, 0.5 mL) were prepared with Milli-Q water (18
MΩ). Stock solutions were used to prepare a series of MOF crystallization
experiments with variation in the HmIm/Zn ratio (70:1, 35:1, 17.5:1,
4:1) and protein concentration (2.5, 1.25, and 0.625 mg/mL) (Table ). Protein solutions
were added to 2-methylimidazole solutions, and crystallization was
initiated by the addition of a zinc acetate solution. Solutions were
aged for 24 h without stirring. The precipitate was obtained via centrifugation
at 10,000 rpm for 10 min, where the supernatant was kept for EE% measurements.[6,24,25] Precipitates were then washed
with water three times prior to electron microscopy and PXRD analysis.
Table 1
Summary of Crystal Sizes for BSA@ZIF-8
and FITC-BSA@ZIF-8 at Four Different HmIm/Zn Ratios (4:1, 17.5:1,
35:1, 70:1) with Final Protein Concentrations of 2.5, 1.25, and 0.625
mg/mL
crystal
size (nm)
HmIm/Zn (mM:mM)
ratio HmIm/Zn
final protein concentrations (mg/mL)
BSA
FITC-BSA
80:20
4:1
2.5
184 ± 31
944 ± 197
1.25
187 ± 45
1317 ± 214
0.625
229 ± 41
2065 ± 282
700:20
17.5:1
2.5
203 ± 42
2215 ± 391
1.25
296 ± 63
403 ± 51
0.625
292 ± 94
389 ± 52
1400:20
35:1
2.5
228 ± 57
1183 ± 334
1.25
270 ± 50
585 ± 189
0.625
291 ± 40
1281 ± 301
2800:20
70:1
2.5
215 ± 33
486 ± 212
1.25
229 ± 49
402 ± 51
0.625
316 ± 61
389 ± 51
Protein Characterization
BSA and FITC-BSA underwent
biophysical characterization using mass spectroscopy techniques, circular
dichroism, and ζ potential measurements. Mass spectra of FITC-BSA
indicate heterogeneous FITC tagging by the poor signal-to-noise in
the raw spectra and the multiple peaks found in the deconvoluted spectra
(Figure a). Charge
state deconvolution was performed on the data, and the center of mass
for BSA was determined to be 66,955 g/mol, which aligns with the reported
mass in the literature,[26] and the center
of mass for FITC-BSA to be 72,433 g/mol. FITC-BSA was found to have
12–18 FITC tags per biomolecule. To determine how FITC affects
surface charge, ζ potential measurements were performed on BSA
and FITC-BSA at pH ranges from 2 to 11 (Figure b). Measurements revealed that both proteins
have similar isoelectric points (∼4–4.5) and that both
were highly negatively charged in the pH conditions that occur during
MOF synthesis. Circular dichroism was used to measure the secondary
protein structure of the tagged and untagged protein in the absence
and presence of zinc acetate to understand how ZIF-8 precursors affect
the protein structures (Figure c). All samples were performed at the same protein concentration
of 1 mg/mL. Studies were attempted in the presence of HmIm, but the
quantum yield of HmIm was too high for the instrument detector as
HmIm absorbs in the UV wavelength range. However, HmIm is believed
to also affect protein folding.[27] BSA is
a globular protein that consists of predominantly α-helical
content. The CD band for α-helical proteins has characteristic
peak dips at ∼210 and ∼220 nm.[28] A reduction in ellipticity (Δε) at these peak dips is
representative of protein unfolding. It was found that the α-helical
character of BSA was reduced when modified with FITC or when in the
presence of zinc acetate. When FITC-BSA is in the presence of zinc
acetate, the α-helical character significantly decreases compared
to all other samples. Intrinsic tryptophan fluorescence further confirms
the unfolding of BSA when tagged with FITC (Figure S1). A blue shift can be observed for FITC-BSA compared to
BSA as the center of mass changes from 345 to 310 nm. While we also
see a blue shift (∼5–10 nm) for BSA@ZIF-8, the shift
is more significant for FITC-BSA, where the center of mass shifts
from 310 to 380 nm. We can associate these changes with structural
changes of protein molecules that influence the position of energy
states as well as transition probability.[29] While protein unfolding has been shown to occur in the presence
of zinc acetate and when encapsulated in ZIF-8, refolding of the protein
upon release from ZIF-8 is possible.[30]
Figure 1
Biophysical
characterization of FITC-BSA (blue) and BSA (orange)
using (a) ESI-MS where the black arrows are indicative of FITC-tag
spacing, (b) ζ potential, and (c) circular dichroism in the
absence (solid line) and presence (dashed line) of zinc.
Biophysical
characterization of FITC-BSA (blue) and BSA (orange)
using (a) ESI-MS where the black arrows are indicative of FITC-tag
spacing, (b) ζ potential, and (c) circular dichroism in the
absence (solid line) and presence (dashed line) of zinc.
Crystal Structure
ZIF-8 crystals can form various polymorphs,
with diamondoid (dia) and sodalite (sod) being the most widely studied.[31,32] Polymorph control can be obtained by altering the HmIm/Zn ratio,
changing the precursor concentrations, or integrating a nucleation
and growth-driving agent (i.e., surfaces or biomolecules).[33,34] PXRD was used to analyze isolated ZIF-8, BSA@ZIF-8, and FITC-BSA@ZIF-8
crystals. At low HmIm/Zn ratios (4:1), ZIF-8 crystals form the diamondoid
(dia) structure (Figure S2a).[35] The HmIm/Zn ratio gradually increases (17.5:1),
and a mixture of dia and sod can be obtained (Figure S2b), followed by exclusive sod formation at 35:1 and
70:1 (Figure S2c,d). The sod polymorph
is also formed exclusively for all HmIm/Zn ratios except 4:1 in the
presence of BSA and FITC-BSA (Figures , S3, and S4).[21] For 1.25 and 0.625 mg/mL at 4:1, a mixture of
sod and ZIF-CO3-1 (ZIF-C) can be observed for both protein@MOFs
(Figures S3a ad S4a), This is not surprising
as it has been recently found that ZIF-C forms as the weight percent
of BSA decreases.[22]
Figure 2
(a) PXRD patterns of
protein@MOFs at varying HmIm ratios. SEM images
of (b) 4:1 BSA@ZIF-8, (c) 4:1 FITC-BSA@ZIF-8, (d), 17.5:1 BSA@ZIF-8,
(e) 17.5:1 FITC-BSA@ZIF-8, (f) 35:1 BSA@ZIF-8, (g) 35:1 FITC-BSA@ZIF-8
(h) 70:1 BSA@ZIF-8, and (i) 70:1 FITC-BSA@ZIF-8, at a final protein
concentration of 2.5 mg/mL. The white scale bar is at 1 μm.
(a) PXRD patterns of
protein@MOFs at varying HmIm ratios. SEM images
of (b) 4:1 BSA@ZIF-8, (c) 4:1 FITC-BSA@ZIF-8, (d), 17.5:1 BSA@ZIF-8,
(e) 17.5:1 FITC-BSA@ZIF-8, (f) 35:1 BSA@ZIF-8, (g) 35:1 FITC-BSA@ZIF-8
(h) 70:1 BSA@ZIF-8, and (i) 70:1 FITC-BSA@ZIF-8, at a final protein
concentration of 2.5 mg/mL. The white scale bar is at 1 μm.
Crystal Size
ZIF-8 (sod) crystals form large crystals
with a large particle size distribution. For example, with 35:1, crystal
sizes range from 710 nm to 3.7 μm with an average mean diameter
of 2.1 μm and an average standard deviation of ∼800 nm
(Figure ). By integrating
BSA into a ZIF-8 system, the crystal size and standard deviation decrease
with an average crystal size of 245 nm and an average standard deviation
of 50 nm. At all HmIm/Zn conditions, the crystal size gradually decreases
as the BSA concentration increases (Figures c and S6a). For
example, with 4:1, the average crystal size with 0.625 mg/mL BSA is
229 nm, and the average crystal size with 2.5 mg/mL BSA is 184 nm.
For all synthetic conditions with FITC-BSA, the average mean size
of crystals (1.3 μm) is larger than BSA@ZIF-8 crystals (245
nm) but smaller than ZIF-8 crystals (1.4 μm) (Table ). In addition, the average
standard deviation for FITC-BSA is 194 nm, which is greater than the
average standard deviation of BSA@ZIF-8 (50 nm) but smaller than that
of ZIF-8 (800 nm). Except for the 4:1 condition, size trends related
to protein concentration or HmIm/Zn cannot be observed for FITC-BSA@ZIF-8
(Figures b,d and S6b).
Figure 3
Size distribution histograms of (a) BSA@ZIF-8
and (b) BSA@ZIF-8
at a constant protein concentration of 2.5 mg/mL and HmIm:zinc ratios
of 4:1 (green), 17.5:1 (orange), 35:1 (blue), and 70:1 (gray) and
(c) BSA@ZIF-8 and (d) FITC-BSA at a constant HmIm:zinc ratio of 35:1
with final protein concentrations of 2.5 mg/mL (blue), 1.25 mg/mL
(green), 0.625 mg/mL (gray), and 0 mg/mL (orange).
Size distribution histograms of (a) BSA@ZIF-8
and (b) BSA@ZIF-8
at a constant protein concentration of 2.5 mg/mL and HmIm:zinc ratios
of 4:1 (green), 17.5:1 (orange), 35:1 (blue), and 70:1 (gray) and
(c) BSA@ZIF-8 and (d) FITC-BSA at a constant HmIm:zinc ratio of 35:1
with final protein concentrations of 2.5 mg/mL (blue), 1.25 mg/mL
(green), 0.625 mg/mL (gray), and 0 mg/mL (orange).
Crystal Morphology
In the absence of protein, ZIF-8
crystals exhibit smooth surfaces for both sod and dia polymorphs (Figure S2). Introduction of BSA at all HmIm/Zn
ratios results in the formation of spheroid crystals with rough surfaces
(Figure b,d,f,h).
As the ratio of HmIm/Zn increases, BSA@ZIF-8 crystals become more
faceted and have smoother surfaces (Figure S3). In the presence of FITC-BSA, crystals retain truncated rhombic
dodecahedral morphology, displaying rough surfaces at low HmIm/Zn
ratios (Figure c,e)
and smoother surfaces at high ratios (Figure g,i). The 70:1 FITC-BSA@ZIF-8 crystals form
three different types of crystals that can be described as large smooth-surfaced
crystals, mid-sized crystals with rougher surfaces, and small spheroid
crystals with rough surfaces (Figure i). All MOF crystals were washed three times with water
to remove excess precursors, yet significant amorphous peaks in PXRD
patterns can be observed in the 17.5:1 with 1.25 mg/mL of BSA as well
as with 17.5:1 and 35:1 with 2.5 mg/mL FITC (Figure a). A comparison of BSA@ZIF-8 and FITC-BSA@ZIF-8
crystals (35:1, 2.5 mg/mL) by TEM indicates that the FITC-BSA@ZIF-8
sample contains large regions of undefined material (Figure S8). We hypothesize that this undefined material contributes
to the amorphous peak seen in PXRD.
Encapsulation Efficiency
Protein incorporation into
BSA@ZIF-8 and FITC-BSA@ZIF-8 was confirmed with FTIR spectra as amide
I peak at 1654 cm–1 can be observed in both MOF
samples (Figure S9).[36,37] Additionally, intrinsic tryptophan fluorescence was performed on
the protein@MOFs (Figure S1). For both
protein@MOFs, samples were excited at 280 nm, and emission peaks can
be observed between 310 and 380 nm, which can be linked to tryptophan
amino acids, and thus protein, being incorporated into the MOFs. The
encapsulation efficiency for FITC-BSA@ZIF-8 and BSA@ZIF-8 was determined
by measuring the concentration of protein in the supernatant,[6,17,18] which is the liquid obtained
after the first centrifugation cycle prior to washes. EE% is calculated
by quantifying the remaining protein concentration in the supernatant
to calculate protein concentration in MOF precipitate. EE% was measured
using fluorescence spectroscopy, where the emission intensity of fluorescein
(∼520 nm) and tryptophan (∼340 nm) was measured for
FITC-BSA@ZIF-8 and BSA@ZIF-8, respectively (Figure ). Tryptophan fluorescence intensity is sensitive
to solution pH and metal binding; thus, supernatants for BSA@ZIF-8
and FITC-BSA@ZIF-8 were diluted in a phosphate buffer (∼pH
6.7) containing excess tetrasodium ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid
(EDTA) to ensure that the protein conformation remained constant.
(Figure S11).
Figure 4
Encapsulation efficiency
of protein@MOFs at final protein concentrations
of (a) 2.5 mg/mL, (b) 1.25 mg/mL, and (c) 0.625 mg/mL. (d, e) Correlative
TEM (left) and fluorescence microscopy (right) images of FITC-BSA@ZIF-8
crystals at 35:1 with 2.5 mg/mL FITC-BSA. Scale bars are 10 μm.
A strong, uniform signal can be viewed around the outside edges of
some crystals (blue box), whereas a weak, nonuniform signal can be
seen in other crystals (orange box). Green arrows denote an amorphous
phase with a clear fluorescent signal, whereas the yellow arrow denotes
an amorphous region that has little to no fluorescence.
Encapsulation efficiency
of protein@MOFs at final protein concentrations
of (a) 2.5 mg/mL, (b) 1.25 mg/mL, and (c) 0.625 mg/mL. (d, e) Correlative
TEM (left) and fluorescence microscopy (right) images of FITC-BSA@ZIF-8
crystals at 35:1 with 2.5 mg/mL FITC-BSA. Scale bars are 10 μm.
A strong, uniform signal can be viewed around the outside edges of
some crystals (blue box), whereas a weak, nonuniform signal can be
seen in other crystals (orange box). Green arrows denote an amorphous
phase with a clear fluorescent signal, whereas the yellow arrow denotes
an amorphous region that has little to no fluorescence.Protein EE% measurements of BSA@ZIF-8 systems were
also measured
using the Bradford assay, which validated results from the fluorescent
measurements (Figure S14). When HmIm/Zn
ratios of 4:1 or 17.5:1 are used, both BSA@ZIF-8 and FITC-BSA@ZIF-8
have ∼100% encapsulation for all protein concentrations studied.
The most significant difference was observed in the 35:1 samples at
protein concentrations of 2.5 and 1.25 mg/mL, where the EE% of FITC-BSA@ZIF-8
was ∼90% and the BSA@ZIF-8 was ∼40%. The EE% method
for these results is notable because EE% is measured through protein
quantification of the supernatant; therefore, the protein concentration
in the MOF precipitate, which could potentially contain both MOF crystals
and MOF amorphous phases, is the calculated EE% value. The 35:1 crystals
were then imaged with fluorescent microscopy, which revealed that
FITC-BSA is located in both crystals and the amorphous material (Figure d,e). Crystals with
little to no fluorescence can also be observed in the fluorescent
microscopy data. Thus, samples that contain a significant amorphous
background, as indicated by PXRD, are indicated with a star. Future
work will focus on methods to distinguish between proteins that are
encapsulated into crystals and that are precipitated into an amorphous
phase.
Mechanistic Studies
In situ measurements were performed
on the crystallization of FITC-BSA@ZIF-8 using XRD and cryo-TEM. Based
on the data in the previous sections, the 35:1 BSA@ZIF-8 and FITC-BSA@ZIF-8
with a protein concentration of 2.5 mg/mL were chosen to study as
the systems having the largest variance in crystal size, morphology,
and encapsulation efficiency. In situ XRD data were analyzed by measuring
the area under the (011) peak over 8 h to measure the extent of crystallinity
(Figure a). As the
reaction progresses, more amorphous species crystallize, which can
be quantified by an increase in area under the (011) peak (Figure S15). Distinct differences between the
growth of BSA@ZIF-8 and FITC-BSA@ZIF-8 can be observed between 10
and 110 min. During this time, BSA@ZIF-8 is observed to have a greater
extent of crystallinity and to grow at a greater crystallization rate.
ZIF-8 in the absence of protein was also measured and crystallized
at a similar rate as FITC-BSA@ZIF-8. Time-point measurements for cryo-TEM
were chosen based on differences in the in situ XRD data. At initial
time points (∼1 min), all cryo-TEM images of FITC-BSA@ZIF-8
reveal similar Zn/HmIm amorphous and protein/Zn/HmIm amorphous phases
(Figure b). Particle
picking and averaging of individual particles were used to determine
average particle diameters (see the SI for
details). The full width at half maximum (FWHM) of the BSA@ZIF-8 particle
line profile was 6.8 ± 1 nm (Figure c) and the FITC-BSA@ZIF-8 particle line profile
was 12.0 ± 0.55 nm (Figure b). Note: the data used for Figure a were collected in our previous paper.[21] After 1 h, the particulate amorphous phase disappears
for BSA@ZIF-8 and is replaced with predominantly BSA@ZIF-8 crystals
(Figure d). Meanwhile,
at 1 h, the FITC-BSA@ZIF-8 sample still contains the particulate amorphous
phase, which is either in the presence or absence of crystals (Figure e). Particle picking
and averaging were attempted for the FITC-BSA@ZIF-8 amorphous particles
at 1 h. However, the resulting image did not reveal a well-defined
particle, which we believe is due to the heterogeneity of the particles
within the amorphous phase (Figure S16).
After 24 h, the BSA@ZIF-8 sample solely consists of crystals, whereas
particulate amorphous phases can still be observed in the FITC-BSA@ZIF-8
samples (Figure S8b).
Figure 5
In situ measurements
of protein@MOFs. (a) In situ XRD of BSA@ZIF-8
(orange), FITC-BSA@ZIF-8 (blue), and ZIF-8 (black). The data are displayed
as the extent of crystallinity (α) over time. (b) Cryo-TEM image
of FITC-BSA@ZIF-8 at 1 min (scale bar 100 nm) and averaged particles
(right). (c) Cryo-TEM image of BSA@ZIF-8 at 1 min (scale bar 100 nm)
(left) and averaged particles (right). Note: the data used for Figure
5c were collected in our previous paper.[21] (d) Low-magnification cryo-TEM image (scale bar 1 μm) (left)
and the high-magnification image (scale bar 100 nm) (right) of BSA@ZIF-8
at 1 h. (e.) Cryo-TEM of FITC-BSA@ZIF-8 at 1 h showing the appearance
of the crystal (left) and amorphous particles (right). The scale bar
is 100 nm.
In situ measurements
of protein@MOFs. (a) In situ XRD of BSA@ZIF-8
(orange), FITC-BSA@ZIF-8 (blue), and ZIF-8 (black). The data are displayed
as the extent of crystallinity (α) over time. (b) Cryo-TEM image
of FITC-BSA@ZIF-8 at 1 min (scale bar 100 nm) and averaged particles
(right). (c) Cryo-TEM image of BSA@ZIF-8 at 1 min (scale bar 100 nm)
(left) and averaged particles (right). Note: the data used for Figure
5c were collected in our previous paper.[21] (d) Low-magnification cryo-TEM image (scale bar 1 μm) (left)
and the high-magnification image (scale bar 100 nm) (right) of BSA@ZIF-8
at 1 h. (e.) Cryo-TEM of FITC-BSA@ZIF-8 at 1 h showing the appearance
of the crystal (left) and amorphous particles (right). The scale bar
is 100 nm.
Discussion
Previous research has demonstrated that
BSA can be incorporated
into ZIF-8 crystals via two different mechanisms that are dependent
on HmIm/Zn ratios.[21] At low ratios, BSA
binds with Zn and HmIm, forming an amorphous precursor phase, which
increases local supersaturation and promotes nucleation of ZIF-8 (sod).
At high ratios, ZIF-8 crystals can form independently, and BSA is
incorporated when amorphous particles of BSA/HmIm/Zn attach to the
surface of growing crystals and undergo crystallization by particle
attachment. The mechanism of particle attachment results in rough
surfaces observed for BSA@ZIF-8 crystals. Although these are described
as separate mechanisms, both mechanisms likely occur simultaneously
under certain conditions. With this understanding, this paper aims
to determine how molecular modifications affect the mechanisms through
observation of in situ experiments and final crystal sizes and morphologies.In the case where proteins directly promote nucleation (low HmIm/Zn
ratios), large mean crystal sizes and large size distributions indicate
that nucleation from the protein/HmIm/Zn amorphous phase is slower
with FITC-BSA@ZIF-8 than BSA@ZIF-8 (Figure , Table ). When proteins are incorporated by particle attachment
(high HmIm/Zn ratios), the collective data indicate that FITC-BSA
can readily form an amorphous phase with HmIm and Zn (Figure (2a,2b)). Moreover, the larger
FITC-BSA@ZIF-8 crystals (Table ) indicate a slower rate of particle nucleation on the surface
of growing ZIF-8 crystals (Figure (2c)). The SEM images further support this as FITC-BSA@ZIF-8
crystals have smoother surfaces compared to the BSA@ZIF-8 crystals
(Figure ).
Figure 6
Proposed schematic
of the formation mechanism of BSA@ZIF-8 at high
HmIm/Zn ratios when BSA is (1a–1c) folded vs (2a–2c)
unfolded. Both mechanisms initially form particulate amorphous intermediates
consisting of protein/HmIm/Zn (a, b). The folded BSA/HmIm/Zn intermediates
are then able to adsorb and crystallize onto the growing ZIF-8 surface
(1c), whereas the unfolded BSA/HmIm/Zn intermediate cannot (2c).
Proposed schematic
of the formation mechanism of BSA@ZIF-8 at high
HmIm/Zn ratios when BSA is (1a–1c) folded vs (2a–2c)
unfolded. Both mechanisms initially form particulate amorphous intermediates
consisting of protein/HmIm/Zn (a, b). The folded BSA/HmIm/Zn intermediates
are then able to adsorb and crystallize onto the growing ZIF-8 surface
(1c), whereas the unfolded BSA/HmIm/Zn intermediate cannot (2c).EE% provides information on how efficiently particular
growth mechanisms
incorporate biomolecules into the final MOF products. At low HmIm/Zn
ratios, EE% measurements suggest both FITC-BSA and BSA are successful
in promoting ZIF-8 (sod) growth as both are fully incorporated into
the MOF crystals. At high HmIm/Zn ratios (70:1 and 35:1), the EE%
measurements suggest that FITC modification can increase the encapsulation
of BSA into ZIF-8. However, the XRD and fluorescent microscopy data
show that FITC-BSA@ZIF-8 products consist of both amorphous and crystalline
phases, in contrast to BSA@ZIF-8 products, which almost exclusively
consist of crystalline phases (Figures and 4). This also supports
our hypothesis that nucleation from the amorphous phase is inhibited
by FITC-BSA.To further test this hypothesis, in situ XRD and
cryo-TEM measurements
on the 35:1 protein@MOF at a 2.5 mg/mL protein concentration were
performed to understand how FITC-BSA mechanistically alters the final
MOF crystal properties and phases. The cryo-TEM data show that particulate
amorphous phase forms for both BSA@ZIF-8 and FITC-BSA within 1 min.
Some of the particles within the phases appear to consist of a protein
core and a HmIm/Zn shell (Figure a). We further believe that HmIm and Zn are bound throughout
the protein cores and that the zinc-bound atoms are responsible for
the dark contrast of the particles. These FITC-BSA/HmIm/Zn particles
persist for the remaining duration of the FITC-BSA@ZIF-8 synthesis,
as supported by the cryo-TEM, whereas the BSA/HmIm/Zn particles adsorb
and crystallize onto a growing ZIF-8 crystal. In addition, the rate
of crystallinity development for FITC-BSA@ZIF-8 in the 10–100
min is slow compared to BSA@ZIF-8. This provides direct evidence for
the inability for the FITC-BSA/HmIm/Zn particles to grow by particle
attachment. Instead, this suggests that a monomer addition mechanism
is favored.[21]The collective data
strongly support that FITC-BSA has a different
nucleation and growth mechanism compared to BSA. Despite the size
of fluorescent dyes being relatively small in comparison to proteins,
research has found that fluorescent tags such as FITC can affect physicochemical
characteristics of biomolecules such as size, secondary protein structure,
and surface charge.[31,32] Our initial hypothesis was that
protein charge would be the main factor enabling particle addition
crystallization.[18,38] However, ζ potential measurements
revealed similar pI (±0.5) for FITC-BSA and BSA (Figure b). Instead, circular dichroism
studies suggest variation in protein folding, especially within the
amorphous precursor phase, to be the cause of the deviation in protein@MOF
formation mechanisms. In general, protein unfolding causes hydrophobic
amino acid groups to become exposed and protein aggregation to occur.[39] In the case of FITC-BSA@ZIF-8 and BSA@ZIF-8,
we hypothesize that unfolding is caused by the high binding affinity
of zinc to the electrophilic groups on the amino acids and FITC tag.
While the unfolding of BSA is minimal in the presence of zinc, as
supported by the recent literature,[40] FITC
tagging increases the extent of the unfolding of BSA with zinc (Figure c). The unfolding
of FITC-BSA in the amorphous phase explains the large heterogeneity
of amorphous particles at 1 h (Figure S16). To further validate the effect of protein unfolding in the growth
mechanisms, BSA@ZIF-8 crystals were synthesized using a partially
unfolded BSA (Figure S17). Crystals produced
with partially unfolded BSA had a similar morphology as FITC-BSA@ZIF-8
crystals (Figure S17b) and were ∼800
nm—much larger than BSA@ZIF-8 crystals (Figure S18). This strongly supports the finding that protein
folding is the dominant factor behind the differences observed between
BSA and FITC-BSA@ZIF-8 crystals.
Conclusions
In conclusion, we have demonstrated that
the modification of BSA with FITC molecules significantly alters the
crystal growth mechanism affecting the encapsulation efficiency, crystal
size, and crystal morphology. Circular dichroism studies indicate
this is predominantly driven by protein folding within the amorphous
precursor phase, and fluorescent spectroscopy studies confirm that
proteins remain unfolded in the final MOF crystals. The data also
show that different HmIm/Zn ratios will modulate how molecular modification
can affect these properties. For example, the effect of modification
on the 35:1, 1.25 mg/mL system is that EE% increases from ∼40
to 90%, and the mean crystal diameter increases from 270 ± 50
to 580 ±189 nm. However, the effect of modification for the 4:1,
1.25 mg/mL system is that EE% remains the same (∼100%) while
the mean crystal diameter increases from 187 to 1317 nm. These data
show that the mechanisms that govern protein EE% and crystal size
are at least partially decoupled, which presents a challenge as the
role of a protein during crystallization processes is complex. However,
these results also present an opportunity to use molecular modifications
of proteins to independently tune the structural features and properties
of protein@MOFs. Tuning of protein@MOFs requires a deep understanding
of nonclassical nucleation pathways and protein folding and aggregation
in these pathways. Although each biomolecule will behave differently,
we believe that the general mechanisms and tunability with molecular
modifications and protein folding should be generalizable to all biomolecules.
Future work with other proteins and molecular modifications is needed
to confirm this generalizability.
Methods
Materials
All chemical reagents used for FITC-BSA@ZIF-8
and BSA@ZIF-8 were obtained from Sigma-Aldrich unless stated otherwise.
FITC-BSA was purchased from Sigma-Aldrich post-tagging and purification.
Stock solutions of bovine serum albumin, bovine serum albumin fluorescein
isothiocyanate, 2-methylimidazole (HmIm), and zinc acetate (Zn) were
made using Milli-Q water (ρ > 18 MΩ cm).
TEM
TEM samples were prepared by pipetting 10×
diluted solutions onto TEM grids for ∼ 5–10 min and
were then blotted with Kimwipe paper. Further, 400 Mesh Carbon grids
were used and purchased from TedPella. Images were obtained using
a JOEL-2800 TEM with a Schottky field-type field emission gun at 200
kV in convergent beam mode using a Gatan OneView Camera.
Cryo-TEM
Cryo-TEM samples were prepared using a Quantifoil
R2/2 Holey Carbon Films from Electron Microscopy Sciences or 400 Mesh
Carbon grids from TedPella. Prior to sample application, glow discharge
was applied to the grids for 70 s. Reaction solutions at various time
points were centrifuged for ∼ 2 s, and 3 μL of each sample
was taken from the reaction solutions and underwent vitrification
using an Automatic Plunge Freezer ME GP2 (Leica Microsystems). Vitrification
was performed at a ∼95% humidity with a blot time of 4 s, and
samples were plunged into liquid propane. Samples were then analyzed
using a JOEL-2100 TEM with a Schottky field-type emission gun set
to 200 kV. Images were obtained using Serial EM software or a Gatan
OneView Camera.
SEM
Samples were prepared by pipetting 10 μL
of the sample onto 1 mm thick glass slides, which were then coated
with 5 nm iridium (Quorum Q150T) to reduce charging. Samples were
imaged with a Magellan 400 XRH system with secondary electron images
taken at an accelerating voltage ranging from 2 to 3 keV.
PXRD
After removing all liquid from the top of centrifuged
crystal precipitates and allowing samples to air dry, a Rigaku SmartLab
X-ray diffractometer was used to obtain PXRD patterns at 40 kV and
44 mA while in Bragg–Brentano mode. Results were plotted with
background subtraction using IGOR software.
In Situ XRD
Samples were initially mixed in glass vials
and immediately transferred into 10 mm glass capillaries. Samples
were scanned every 10 min for 8 h using a Rigaku Smartlab. The instrument
was set to 40 kV and 44 mA and measured in parallel beam/ parallel
slit analyzer mode. Results were plotted with background subtraction
using IGOR software.
Fluorescence Microscopy
Fluorescence imaging and microscopy
were performed as described in the previous manuscript.[18] Second harmonic of 960 nm femtosecond pulse
radiation (480 nm, 76 MHz, 5 mW) was coupled into an Olympus FluoView
1000 laser scanning microscopy system based on an Olympus IX81 inverted
microscope frame. Fluorescence was collected using a 60 × NA
= 1.41 oil immersion objective lens (Olympus) in epi geometry. Transmitted
light was used for simple morphology mapping and correlation with
TEM images. Imaging was performed at various fields of view with resolutions
of 800 × 800 and 2048 × 2048 pixels with a scanning speed
of 2 μs/pixel. All images were processed to be displayed in
RGB (100,0,0) coordinates.
Mass Spectrometry
MALDI-TOF-MS measurements were performed
using a Brûker Ultra Flex Extreme in linear positive mode.
Samples were spotted in the water and ran in saturated sinapic acid
in a 50:50 water/acetonitrile with 0.1% TFA (trifluoracetic acid).
Intact mass measurements were also performed using a Xevo G2-XS Qtof
after desalting thru a phenyl–hexyl column BEH guard column.
The measurements were performed in positive mode from 400 to 4,000
da. The charge state series were deconvoluted using a Waters’
Masslynx MaxEnt1 algorithm with ranges of 50,000:80,000 g/mol. Baseline
subtraction was then performed.
Circular Dichroism
Circular dichroism samples were
diluted to 1 mg/mL using water and were analyzed between 200 and 240
nm in a 10 mm quartz cuvette. Five accumulations for each sample were
performed.
ζ Potential
ζ potential measurements of
samples were taken with a Malvern Zetasizer ZS Nano dynamic light
scattering instrument. The instrument was set to automatic runs (ranging
from 10–100), and triplicate measurements were averaged for
each sample. Measurements were performed with samples in a disposable
capillary cell from Malvern Panalytical.
Authors: Weibin Liang; Huoshu Xu; Francesco Carraro; Natasha K Maddigan; Qiaowei Li; Stephen G Bell; David M Huang; Andrew Tarzia; Marcello B Solomon; Heinz Amenitsch; Lisa Vaccari; Christopher J Sumby; Paolo Falcaro; Christian J Doonan Journal: J Am Chem Soc Date: 2019-01-30 Impact factor: 15.419
Authors: Kang Liang; Raffaele Ricco; Cara M Doherty; Mark J Styles; Stephen Bell; Nigel Kirby; Stephen Mudie; David Haylock; Anita J Hill; Christian J Doonan; Paolo Falcaro Journal: Nat Commun Date: 2015-06-04 Impact factor: 14.919