4.6 Article

Protein Corona over Mesoporous Silica Nanoparticles: Influence of the Pore Diameter on Competitive Adsorption and Application to Prostate Cancer Diagnostics

期刊

ACS OMEGA
卷 4, 期 5, 页码 8852-8861

出版社

AMER CHEMICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1021/acsomega.9b00460

关键词

-

资金

  1. University of Vermont
  2. Spanish Ministry of Economy and Competitiveness [TEC2016-80976-R, SEV-2016-0683]
  3. Generalitat Valenciana [PROMETEO/2017/060]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Diagnostic tests based on proteomics analysis can have significant advantages over more traditional biochemical tests. However, low molecular weight (MW) protein biomarkers are difficult to identify by standard mass spectrometric analysis, as they are usually present at low concentrations and are masked by more abundant resident proteins. We have previously shown that mesoporous silica nanoparticles are able to capture a predominantly low MW protein fraction from the serum, as compared to the protein corona (PC) adsorbed onto dense silica nanoparticles. In this study, we begin by further investigating this effect using liquid chromatography-mass spectrometry (LC-MS)/MS and thermogravimetric analysis (TGA) to compare the MW of the proteins in the coronas of mesoporous silica nanoparticles with the same particle size but different pore diameters. Next, we examine the process by which two proteins, one small and one large, adsorb onto these mesoporous silica nanoparticles to establish a theory of why the corona becomes enriched in low MW proteins. Finally, we use this information to develop a novel system for the diagnosis of prostate cancer. An elastic net statistical model was applied to LC-MS/MS protein coronas from the serum of 22 cancer patients, identifying proteins specific to each patient group. These studies help to explain why low MW proteins predominate in the coronas of mesoporous silica nanoparticles, and they illustrate the ability of this information to supplement more traditional diagnostic tests.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据