4.7 Article

Interactions between carbon nanodots with human serum albumin and γ-globulins: The effects on the transportation function

期刊

JOURNAL OF HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
卷 301, 期 -, 页码 242-249

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.jhazmat.2015.08.062

关键词

Carbon nanodots; Serum proteins; Protein-drug interaction

资金

  1. Chinese 973 Program [2011CB933600]
  2. National Science Fund for Distinguished Young Scholars of China [21225313]
  3. National Natural Science Foundation of China [21303126, 21473125]
  4. Hubei Natural Science Foundation of China [3014CFA003]
  5. Fundamental Research Funds for Central Universities [20420141kf0287]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Carbon nanodots (C-dots) have attracted great attention as a new class of luminescent nanomaterials due to their superior physical and chemical properties. In order to better understand the basic behavior of C-dots in biological systems, a series of photophysical measurements were applied to study the interactions of C-dots with human serum albumin (HSA) and gamma-globulins. The fluorescence of proteins was quenched by the dynamic mechanism rather than the formation of a protein/C-dots complex. The apparent dissociation constants of the C-dots bound to HSA and gamma-globulins were of the same order of magnitude. Furthermore, it is proven that C-dots showed little influence on the conformation of HSA and gamma-globulins. In addition, Fourier transform infrared and fluorescence spectroscopic studies demonstrated that the interaction between C-dots and two kinds of serum proteins was driven by hydrophobic and van der waals forces. Since the bioavailability of drugs can be modulated by their interactions with proteins, the variations of binding constants of three drugs with HSA and gamma-globulins in the presence of different concentrations of C-dots (0-84 mu mol L-1) have also been analyzed in this work, to reflect the effect of C-dots on the transportation function of HSA and gamma-globulins. (C) 2015 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

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

4.7
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