Structural determinants for protein adsorption/non-adsorption to silica surface

PLoS One. 2013 Nov 25;8(11):e81346. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0081346. eCollection 2013.

Abstract

The understanding of the mechanisms involved in the interaction of proteins with inorganic surfaces is of major interest in both fundamental research and applications such as nanotechnology. However, despite intense research, the mechanisms and the structural determinants of protein/surface interactions are still unclear. We developed a strategy consisting in identifying, in a mixture of hundreds of soluble proteins, those proteins that are adsorbed on the surface and those that are not. If the two protein subsets are large enough, their statistical comparative analysis must reveal the physicochemical determinants relevant for adsorption versus non-adsorption. This methodology was tested with silica nanoparticles. We found that the adsorbed proteins contain a higher number of charged amino acids, particularly arginine, which is consistent with involvement of this basic amino acid in electrostatic interactions with silica. The analysis also identified a marked bias toward low aromatic amino acid content (phenylalanine, tryptophan, tyrosine and histidine) in adsorbed proteins. Structural analyses and molecular dynamics simulations of proteins from the two groups indicate that non-adsorbed proteins have twice as many π-π interactions and higher structural rigidity. The data are consistent with the notion that adsorption is correlated with the flexibility of the protein and with its ability to spread on the surface. Our findings led us to propose a refined model of protein adsorption.

Publication types

  • Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't

MeSH terms

  • Adsorption
  • Electrophoresis, Gel, Two-Dimensional
  • Microscopy, Electron, Transmission
  • Protein Conformation
  • Proteins / chemistry*
  • Silicon Dioxide / chemistry*
  • Surface Properties

Substances

  • Proteins
  • Silicon Dioxide

Grants and funding

The authors acknowledge support from the “programme de Toxicologie” of the CEA and from the “programme NanoSciences Ile-de-France”. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.