Volumetric interpretation of protein adsorption: Interfacial packing of protein adsorbed to hydrophobic surfaces from surface-saturating solution concentrations

Department of Electrical Engineering, The Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA 16802, USA.
Biomaterials (Impact Factor: 8.31). 10/2010; 32(4):969-78. DOI: 10.1016/j.biomaterials.2010.09.075
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT The maximum capacity of a hydrophobic adsorbent is interpreted in terms of square or hexagonal (cubic and face-centered-cubic, FCC) interfacial packing models of adsorbed blood proteins in a way that accommodates experimental measurements by the solution-depletion method and quartz-crystal-microbalance (QCM) for the human proteins serum albumin (HSA, 66 kDa), immunoglobulin G (IgG, 160 kDa), fibrinogen (Fib, 341 kDa), and immunoglobulin M (IgM, 1000 kDa). A simple analysis shows that adsorbent capacity is capped by a fixed mass/volume (e.g. mg/mL) surface-region (interphase) concentration and not molar concentration. Nearly analytical agreement between the packing models and experiment suggests that, at surface saturation, above-mentioned proteins assemble within the interphase in a manner that approximates a well-ordered array. HSA saturates a hydrophobic adsorbent with the equivalent of a single square or hexagonally-packed layer of hydrated molecules whereas the larger proteins occupy two-or-more layers, depending on the specific protein under consideration and analytical method used to measure adsorbate mass (solution depletion or QCM). Square or hexagonal (cubic and FCC) packing models cannot be clearly distinguished by comparison to experimental data. QCM measurement of adsorbent capacity is shown to be significantly different than that measured by solution depletion for similar hydrophobic adsorbents. The underlying reason is traced to the fact that QCM measures contribution of both core protein, water of hydration, and interphase water whereas solution depletion measures only the contribution of core protein. It is further shown that thickness of the interphase directly measured by QCM systematically exceeds that inferred from solution-depletion measurements, presumably because the static model used to interpret solution depletion does not accurately capture the complexities of the viscoelastic interfacial environment probed by QCM.

Download full-text


Available from: Waseem Haider, Aug 16, 2015
1 Follower
  • Source
    • "Results obtained are consistent with that obtained by tensiometry [22] [23] [24] [25] [26] [27] and quartz-crystal microbalance (QCM) [21]. These adsorption isotherms approximate a Henry isotherm wherein adsorbed amount is in direct proportion to solution concentration W 0 "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Comparison of protein mass-adsorption-rates to rates-of-change in interfacial tensions reveals that mass adsorption is decoupled from interfacial energetics. This implies that energy-barrier theories describing protein-adsorption kinetics do not accurately capture the physics of the process. An alternative paradigm in which protein molecules rapidly diffuse into an inflating interphase which subsequently slowly shrinks in volume, concentrating adsorbed protein and causing slow concomitant decrease in interfacial tensions, is shown to be consistent with adsorption kinetics measured by solution depletion and tensiometry. Mass adsorption kinetics observed from binary-protein solution is compared to adsorption kinetics from single-protein solution, revealing that organization of two different-sized proteins within the interphase can require significantly longer than that adsorbed from single-protein solution and may require expulsion of initially adsorbed protein which is not observed in the single-protein case.
    Applied Surface Science 12/2012; 262:19–23. DOI:10.1016/j.apsusc.2011.12.014 · 2.54 Impact Factor
  • Source
    Journal of the American College of Cardiology 04/2011; 57(14). DOI:10.1016/S0735-1097(11)60065-X · 15.34 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Recent experimental and theoretical work clarifying the physical chemistry of blood-protein adsorption from aqueous-buffer solution to various kinds of surfaces is reviewed and interpreted within the context of biomaterial applications, especially toward development of cardiovascular biomaterials. The importance of this subject in biomaterials surface science is emphasized by reducing the "protein-adsorption problem" to three core questions that require quantitative answer. An overview of the protein-adsorption literature identifies some of the sources of inconsistency among many investigators participating in more than five decades of focused research. A tutorial on the fundamental biophysical chemistry of protein adsorption sets the stage for a detailed discussion of the kinetics and thermodynamics of protein adsorption, including adsorption competition between two proteins for the same adsorbent immersed in a binary-protein mixture. Both kinetics and steady-state adsorption can be rationalized using a single interpretive paradigm asserting that protein molecules partition from solution into a three-dimensional (3D) interphase separating bulk solution from the physical-adsorbent surface. Adsorbed protein collects in one-or-more adsorbed layers, depending on protein size, solution concentration, and adsorbent surface energy (water wettability). The adsorption process begins with the hydration of an adsorbent surface brought into contact with an aqueous-protein solution. Surface hydration reactions instantaneously form a thin, pseudo-2D interface between the adsorbent and protein solution. Protein molecules rapidly diffuse into this newly formed interface, creating a truly 3D interphase that inflates with arriving proteins and fills to capacity within milliseconds at mg/mL bulk-solution concentrations C(B). This inflated interphase subsequently undergoes time-dependent (minutes-to-hours) decrease in volume V(I) by expulsion of either-or-both interphase water and initially adsorbed protein. Interphase protein concentration C(I) increases as V(I) decreases, resulting in slow reduction in interfacial energetics. Steady state is governed by a net partition coefficient P=(C(I)/C(B)). In the process of occupying space within the interphase, adsorbing protein molecules must displace an equivalent volume of interphase water. Interphase water is itself associated with surface-bound water through a network of transient hydrogen bonds. Displacement of interphase water thus requires an amount of energy that depends on the adsorbent surface chemistry/energy. This "adsorption-dehydration" step is the significant free energy cost of adsorption that controls the maximum amount of protein that can be adsorbed at steady state to a unit adsorbent surface area (the adsorbent capacity). As adsorbent hydrophilicity increases, adsorbent capacity monotonically decreases because the energetic cost of surface dehydration increases, ultimately leading to no protein adsorption near an adsorbent water wettability (surface energy) characterized by a water contact angle θ→65(°). Consequently, protein does not adsorb (accumulate at interphase concentrations greater than bulk solution) to more hydrophilic adsorbents exhibiting θ<65(°). For adsorbents bearing strong Lewis acid/base chemistry such as ion-exchange resins, protein/surface interactions can be highly favorable, causing protein to adsorb in multilayers in a relatively thick interphase. A straightforward, three-component free energy relationship captures salient features of protein adsorption to all surfaces predicting that the overall free energy of protein adsorption ΔG(ads)(o) is a relatively small multiple of thermal energy for any surface chemistry (except perhaps for bioengineered surfaces bearing specific ligands for adsorbing protein) because a surface chemistry that interacts chemically with proteins must also interact with water through hydrogen bonding. In this way, water moderates protein adsorption to any surface by competing with adsorbing protein molecules. This Leading Opinion ends by proposing several changes to the protein-adsorption paradigm that might advance answers to the three core questions that frame the "protein-adsorption problem" that is so fundamental to biomaterials surface science.
    Biomaterials 11/2011; 33(5):1201-37. DOI:10.1016/j.biomaterials.2011.10.059 · 8.31 Impact Factor
Show more