An electrochemical immunosensing method based on silver nanoparticles
Nan Hao,Hui Li,Yitao long,Lei Zhang,Xirui Zhao,Danke Xu,Hong-Yuan Chen
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jelechem.2011.01.029
IF: 4.598
2011-01-01
Journal of Electroanalytical Chemistry
Abstract:Research highlights ► In this article an electrochemically direct stripping approach based on silver nanoparticles (AgNPs) labeled with antibody was proposed. ► Human IgG was used as a model protein sample to be immobilized on a screen printed electrode and the goat-anti-human IgG labeled AgNPs was added onto the surface of the SPE. ► With the oxidation of AgNPs labels, the concentration of hIgG could be assayed directly and calculated. ► The dynamic concentration was in the range of 1–1000 ng/mL and the detection limit was 0.4 ng/mL (S/N = 3). Abstract In this article, an electrochemically direct stripping approach based on silver nanoparticles (AgNPs) labeled with antibody was proposed. To prepare AgNPs labels, glutathione (GSH) was chemically absorbed on the surface of AgNPs through its free thiol groups. Glutaraldehyde was used as a coupling reagent, its two aldehyde groups reacted with the amino group of GSH absorbed on the AgNPs surfaces and the amino groups of antibodies, respectively. The resulting labeled electrochemical active nanoparticles could recognize the proteins specifically via the immobilized antibody. To prove the electrochemical property of labeled AgNPs, human IgG was used as a model protein sample to be immobilized on a screen printed electrode (SPE) and the goat-anti-human IgG labeled AgNPs was added onto the surface of the SPE, followed by differential pulse voltammetric (DPV) method. With the oxidation of AgNPs labels coupled on the electrodes, the concentration of hIgG could be assayed directly and calculated. The dynamic concentration was in the range of 1–1000 ng/mL and the detection limit was 0.4 ng/mL ( S / N = 3). In addition, the presented method was also compared to indirect electrochemical stripping detection by dissolving AgNPs labels with nitric acids and the results showed advantages such as lower detection limit, rapidity and simplicity. Keywords Silver nanoparticles Protein assay Immunosensor Electroanalysis 1 Introduction With the coming of proteomics and post-genomics, more effective and sensitive analytical methods to assay proteins are being demanded for the research on protein function due to many important proteins are present at ultra-low levels [1,2] . In addition, it is essential to develop sensitive, selective, and rapid methods for the diagnosis of disease in early stages and drug discovery since most of biomarkers belong to proteins. Immunosensors have been widely used in the detection of proteins [3] . Among them, electrochemical immunosensors based on nanoparticles have attracted considerable interest in recent years because of their high sensitivity, low-cost and inherent miniaturization [4] . Nanoparticles with diameter of 1–100 nm possess many unique properties such as catalysis, high ratios of surface area to volume, and effective acceleration of electron transfer [5] . Taking advantage of their molecular recognizing property by labeled antibodies, nanoparticles have also been used as bioassay labels for electrochemical Immunosensors. With such recognizing reaction between labeled nanoparticles and analytes, the quantification of target molecules can be achieved by the electrochemical detection of nanoparticles [6] . Liu et al. reported a multi-antigen sandwich immunoassay protocol for the simultaneous measurements of proteins by applying different quantum dots (CdS, ZnS, PbS) [7] . Three encoding nanoparticles have thus been used to differentiate the signals of three kinds of protein targets in connection with a sandwich immunoassay and stripping voltammetry of the corresponding metals. Each biorecognition event yielded a distinct voltammetric peak, whose position and area reflected the identity and level of the targets, respectively. For metal particles, many works have been reported on the application of gold nanoparticles in biosensors [8,9] . Dequaire et al. developed an electrochemical immunoassay by using a colloidal gold label [10] , in which the colloidal gold labeled secondary antibody was coupled on the polystyrene microwells through sandwich reaction and then bromine-bromide solution was pipetted into the microwells to dissolve gold nanoparticles. The solution containing gold (III) ion was transferred to a disposable SPE and determined on concentration as low as 3 × 10 −12 M. Silver nanoparticles are less popular than gold nanoparticles in the field of biosensors due to their limited stability. In fact, AgNPs have own advantages such as the easy dissolution of silver without poisonous reagent like Br 2 as well as better electrochemical properties. The application of AgNPs in biosensors focused on DNA analysis. Cai et al. described an electrochemical DNA hybridization detection assay based on the hybridization of the target DNA with the silver nanoparticle–oligonucleotide DNA probes [11] . Wang et al. exploited the DNA-induced generation of metal clusters for developing an electrical biosensing method [12] . Szymanski et al. reported the first immunoassay utilizing silver nanoparticles for protein detection in 2010, in which silver colloid aggregates can be transferred from 96-well Plate onto SPEs and electrochemically assayed with detection limit of 3 ng/mL [13] . The sensitivity of metalloimmunoassays can be enhanced by deposition of metal on the surface of nanoparticles, which lead to generation of more metal ions for amplifying the signal. The metal that have been reported to amplify signal include gold [14] , silver [15,16] , copper [17] . Another process called biometallization has also been reported, in which metallization is catalyzed by an enzyme [18] . More recently, DNA oligomer functionalized AgNP aggregates has successfully been assayed on DNA arrayed gold electrodes reported by our research group [19] , in which AgNPs labels could be directly oxidized and produce current signals. Compared to indirect assay approaches, this method has more advantages such as rapidity, simplicity and sensitivity. In this paper, we developed an electrochemical detection approach to assay micro-volume protein by using AgNPs labels. A new modification method to couple silver nanoparticles with antibody covalently was presented and the resulting antibody labeled AgNPs could be used to directly assay the protein samples immobilized on screen printed electrodes (SPEs). Compared to indirect electrical detection method of dissolving AgNPs with nitric acids, the presented method exhibits its simplicity, rapidity and lower detection limit. 2 Experimental section 2.1 Apparatus CHI660 electrochemical workstation (CHI Instruments Inc., USA) was used to carry out differential pulse voltammetry. UV–Vis spectra were performed on UV-3600 spectrophotometer (Shimadzu, Japan). Transmission Electron Microscope (JEM-200CX, Japan) was used for collecting TEM images. Screen printed electrodes (Three-electrode devices) were mass manufactured by a screen-printing process using an AT-25P machine (ATMA CHAMP ENT. Corp.) according to the report previously [20] . Briefly, the circular working electrode and the ring-shaped counter electrode were prepared with carbon ink, and the reference electrode was prepared with the silver–silver chloride ink. The SPCE was first washed with distilled water and dried by stream. SPE was then pre-activated in a 0.1 M PBS (pH 6.0) containing 0.1 M KCl by applying an anodic potential of 1.9 V (vs. Ag/AgCl) for 120 s. 2.2 Materials Goat anti-human IgG (GAH-IgG) antibody, human IgG antigen and bovine serum albumin (BSA) were purchased from Bioss (Beijing, China). Reduced glutathione (Biosharp, Japan), glutaraldehyde (25%, National Medicines, China), NaBH 4 , AgNO 3 and other reagents were commercially available and used without further purification. The buffers include 0.1 M phosphate-buffered saline (PBS, pH 7.4), 0.01 M PBS, PBST, PBN. PBST was PBS (0.1 M, pH 7.4) buffer containing 0.05% (w/v) Tween 20. PBN was prepared by adding 8.5 g NaNO 3 to 1 L 0.01 M PBS (pH 7.4). All double distilled water used for all throughout experiments. 2.3 Preparation of silver nanoparticles Silver nanoparticles were prepared by the method reported previously [19] . Briefly, 10 mL aqueous solution of 2 mM AgNO 3 was added dropwise to NaBH 4 (40 mL, 3 mM) with continuous stirring in a conical flask held in an ice bath. At the end of this step, the flask was removed from the ice bath and the mixture was continuously stirred for an additional 30 min. 2.4 Preparation of antibody-AgNPs conjugates Add 20 μL GSH solution (0.1 mg/mL) to silver colloid (1 mL). After the incubation for 1 h at room temperature, 117 μL PBS (0.1 M) was added to this solution and incubated for another 1 h. Then the resulting solution was centrifuged at 15,000 rpm for 3 times (15 min each time) to remove excess GSH. The sediment was resuspended in PBS solution (0.01 M). Ten microliters of goat anti-human IgG (0.1 mg/mL) and 10 μL diluted glutaraldehyde aqueous solution (obtained by diluting 1.5 mL 25% glutaraldehyde solution into 10 mL) were mixed with GSH–AgNPs. The resulting mixture was incubated at 37 °C for 1 h, and then centrifuged for 3 times to remove free goat anti-human IgG and glutaraldehyde. The sediment was resuspended in 0.01 M PBS and stored at 4 °C. 2.5 Electrochemical measurement for protein sample by SPEs IgG (8 μL) of different concentrations including 0, 1 ng/mL, 10 ng/mL, 100 ng/mL, 1000 ng/mL, which were prepared by 0.1 M PBS (containing 1.0 mg/mL BSA), were added on disposable SPEs and incubated at 4 °C overnight. After the immobilization of IgG, SPEs were rinsed with PBST twice. Then 8 μL Antibody-AgNPs Conjugates were added and incubated at 37 °C for 30 min. After being rinsed with PBST for 3 times and PBN for once, differential pulse voltammetry was performed from −0.2 V to +0.3 V using an electrochemical workstation (CHI 660) with a pretreatment step (+0.8 V for 30 s and −0.8 V for 15 s). For indirect detection experiment, 20 μL HNO 3 (0.1 M) was first added on SPEs and incubated for 0.5 h to fully dissolve AgNPs. The resulting HNO 3 solution containing released silver ions was detected by differential pulse voltammetry with the same parameters as shown above. 3 Results and discussion 3.1 Preparation of antibody-AgNPs conjugates Functionalization of silver nanoparticles is similar to that of gold nanoparticles. Silver nanoparticles reduced from metal ions could be stabilized by anionic ligands and negatively charged. In this case, the adsorption of proteins to nanoparticles would be achieved by adjusting pH to make proteins positively charged [13,21,22] . However, physically adsorbed biomolecules are readily lost from the surface, and adsorbed proteins are often prone to be denaturized and thereby lose their biocatalytic or biorecognition activities [23] . In our work, glutathione was used as a coupling reagent to modify AgNPs via molecular self-assembly between mercapto group and silver surface. The UV–Vis spectrum of the modified and unmodified silver colloid is shown in Fig. 1 . It can be found that glutathione dramatically enhanced the stability of AgNPs to aqueous solution of sodium chloride. Compared to GSH–modified AgNPs, the absorbance of unmodified AgNPs solution decreased with adding NaCl (7 μL, 2 M). In fact, when 14 μL NaCl solution was added, the color of AgNPs solution changed to nearly colorless immediately. Thus, the results suggested that glutathione could not only provide amino groups but also improve the stability of AgNPs. The influence of GAH-IgG concentrations on analytical performance was also investigated. The AgNPs modified with 0.1 mg/mL GAH-IgG produced stronger signal than those modified with 0.01 mg/mL or 1 mg/mL antibody, respectively. It is understandable that lower concentration of antibody in the modification reaction would lead to lower coverage because part of AgNPs does not attach biorecognizing molecules. However, it is unexpected that the AgNPs labeled with higher concentration antibody could not produce greater current signal (the current decreased to 50%, data not be shown here). It can be calculated [24] that the ratio of GAH-IgG (67 nM) to AgNPs (1.6 nM) was 40 to 1 when 1 mg/mL (67 nM) antibody was introduced. Based on the sizes of IgG (10 nm) antibody [25] and AgNPs (20 nm), the higher antibody concentration may result in an entirely coverage of antibody molecules on the surface of AgNPs. In this case, the AgNPs modified with antibody could not be oxidized directly on the electrodes. Thus, the higher concentration could lead to the lower electric conductivity and lower current signals. Thus, the concentration of 0.1 mg/mL GAH-IgG was employed to prepare following antibody modification of AgNPs. Wu et al. reported a glutathione-assisted synthesis of silver nanoparticles and their application in suppressing the proliferation of human leukemic K562 cells [26] , in which 6–11 nm silver nanoparticles obtained were difficult to separate by centrifuge due to their small sizes. The morphology of prepared silver nanoparticles and antibody modified silver nanoparticles was further characterized by TEM. It can be found from Fig. 2 that the average diameters of both kinds of the AgNPs were around 20 nm. It indicates that the sizes have not significant difference between the unmodified and modified AgNPs. In fact, the presented method could be easier to separate and purify the modified nanoparticles. 3.2 Development of direct electrochemical stripping detection strategy Screen printing technology has widely been used for large-scale fabrication of disposable biosensors with several advantages such as low cost, versatility, and miniaturization [27] . Depend on van der Waals force between biomolecules and solid support surface, physical adsorption is often used to immobilize protein molecules on SPEs due to its simplicity and reproducibility. In our experiments, micro-volume Human IgG sample (8 μL) was transferred to SPEs and the electrochemical detection strategy is illustrated in Fig. 3 . The goat-anti-Human IgG labeled AgNPs recognizes the IgG molecules immobilized on the SPEs. After the rinse, the AgNPs were bound on the electrodes surface specifically and oxidized to silver ions upon applying DPV measurement. Compared to DNA immobilized AgNPs, protein modified AgNPs lead to greater hinder to electric conductivity because of larger molecular structure. In our primary experiments, direct DPV method reported previously [19] was employed to assay GAH-IgG–AgNPs coupled on the SPEs. However, lower current signals were detected on the protein modified SPEs. To enlarge current signals, a pretreatment step was developed before applying DPV measurement with a positive potential of +0.8 V vs. Ag/AgCl reference electrodes. AgNPs could be oxidized to silver ions and then electrochemically deposited on SPEs by applying a negative potential of −0.8 V. In this case, the silver ions could permeate into the electrode surface and produce amplified detectable current signals. This phenomenon was similar to the reported work previously [13] . Several experimental parameters including reaction time, the concentration of AgNPs and the concentration of GAH-IgG were optimized. Fig. 4 a shows that the current signals are dependent on the reaction time. When lengthened time from 15 min to 30 min, signal increased about 25%. With further lengthening reaction time, peak currents reached to a plateau. It suggested that the immunoreaction between human IgG and GAH-IgG on SPEs could be accomplished within 0.5 h. In addition, the effect of the variation of GAH-IgG concentration was also observed. It is shown in Fig. 4 b that the signals significantly decreased with the dilution of GAH-IgG silver nanoparticles. As a result, the original modified silver nanoparticles were used for the following experiments without dilution. 3.3 Analytical performance Most of electrochemical detection reports [28] based on AgNPs labels used indirect stripping method, i.e. AgNPs have to be dissolved by the addition of nitric acid before carrying out electrochemical assay. To compare with the presented method, indirect electrochemical stripping method was also attempted to assay 1 ng/mL human IgG by using the same AgNPs labels and dissolving with 0.1 M HNO 3 before the electrochemical detection. The results showed that the peak current was 1.1 × 10 −6 A with a background current of 0.8 × 10 −6 A ( Fig. 5 ), the ratio of current signal to background was 1.4. On the other hand, the presented method produced the current of 1 ng/mL is 0.3 × 10 −6 A with a background noise of 0.1 × 10 −6 A, the ratio of current signal to background was three ( Fig. 6 ). Although the dissolution step brought stronger signals for both the target and the noise, it made little contribute to low detection limit. To explore analytical performance of this electrochemical immunological assay, calibration curve was studied in detail. Fig. 6 shows a serial of differential pulse voltammgrams, corresponding to 1 ng/mL, 10 ng/mL, 100 ng/mL and 1000 ng/mL human IgG solution respectively. It can be observed that the peak current of silver nanoparticles is proportional to the concentration of human IgG. Thus, the dynamic concentration ( Fig. 7 ) was in the range of 1–1000 ng/mL. When the ratio of signal to noise was 3, the detection limit of this method was found to be 0.4 ng/mL. Compared to the classical electrochemical stripping method, our presented method can be exempted from the tedious oxidative dissolution of the AgNPs by the use of harmful reagents. Direct oxidation measurement can also be applied to multiplexed target detection and make the assay rapidity. Compared to the reported immunoassay method based on silver nanoparticles [13] , present current method could provide a lower detection limit with fewer steps. Thus, direct electrochemical stripping method based on AgNPs could provide more sensitive, rapid and simple analytical procedure. 4 Conclusion Based on the prepared AgNPs labels, a simple, low-cost electrochemical immunosensing method was developed and could provide a detection limit of 0.4 ng/mL. Compared to indirect electrochemical stripping method, the tedious oxidative dissolution or the use of harmful reagents to dissolve AgNPs could be exempted from this immunosensing method. As a result, the combination of silver nanoparticles and electrochemical detection method provides a sensitive and convenient approach to assay micro-volume protein samples. Acknowledgments The authors acknowledge financial support of National Natural Foundation of China (Grant Nos. 20975050 and 20775033), The National Science Funds for Creative Research Groups (No. 20821063) and National Basic Research Program of China (973 Program No. 2007CB936404). References [1] J. Wang Electroanal. 19 2007 769 776 [2] H. Zhang Q. Zhao X.F. Li X. Chris Le Analyst 132 2007 724 737 [3] H. Chen C. Jiang C. Yu S. Zhang B. Liu J. Kong Biosens. Bioelectron. 24 2009 3399 3411 [4] G. Liu Y. Lin Talanta 74 2007 308 317 [5] S. Guo S. Dong Trends Anal. Chem. 28 2009 96 109 [6] M. Pumera S. Sánchez I. Ichinose J. Tang Sens. Actuat. B-Chem. 123 2007 1195 1205 [7] G. Liu J. Wang J. Kim M.R. Jan G.E. Collins Anal. Chem. 76 2004 7126 7130 [8] J.M. Pingarrón P. Yáñez-Sedeño A.G. lez-Cortés Electrochim. Acta 53 2008 5848 5866 [9] W.R. Glomm J. Disper. Sci. Technol. 26 2005 389 414 [10] M. Dequaire C. Degrand B. Limoges Anal. Chem. 72 2000 5521 5528 [11] H. Cai Y. Xu N. Zhu P. He Y. Fang Analyst 127 2002 803 808 [12] J. Wang O. Rincón R. Polsky E. Dominguez Electrochem. Commun. 5 2003 83 86 [13] M. Szymanski A.P.F. Turner R. Porter Electroanal. 22 2010 191 198 [14] J. Wang D.K. Xu A.N. Kawde R. Polsky Anal. Chem. 73 2001 5576 5581 [15] Y.-H. Bai J.-Y. Li J.-J. Xu H.-Y. Chen Analyst 135 2010 1672 1679 [16] C.H. Yeh H.H. Huang T.C. Chang H.P. Lin Y.C. Lin Biosens. Bioelectron. 24 2009 1661 1666 [17] X. Mao J. Jiang Y. Luo G. Shen R. Yu Talanta 73 2007 420 424 [18] Y. Luo X. Mao Z.F. Peng J.H. Jiang G.L. Shen R.Q. Yu Talanta 74 2008 1642 1648 [19] H. Li Z. Sun W. Zhong N. Hao D. Xu H.Y. Chen Anal. Chem. 82 2010 5477 5483 [20] L. Zhang D.W. Li W. Song L. Shi Y. Li Y.T. Long IEEE Sensors J. 10 2010 1583 1588 [21] C.H. Yeh W.T. Chena H.P. Lin T.C. Chang Y.C. Lin Sensor. Actuat. B-Chem. 139 2009 387 393 [22] J. Ling Y.F. Li C.Z. Huang Anal. Chem. 81 2009 1707 1714 [23] E. Katz I. Willner Angew. Chem. Int. Ed. 43 2004 6042 6108 [24] S.E.W. Jones F.W. Campbell R. Baron L. Xiao R.G. Compton J. Phys. Chem. C. 112 2008 17820 17827 [25] O. Bermudez D. Forciniti J. Chromatogr. B 807 2004 17 24 [26] Q. Wu H. Cao Q. Luan J. Zhang Z. Wang J.H. Warner A.A.R. Watt Inorg. Chem. 47 2008 5882 5888 [27] M. Tudorache C. Bala Anal. Bioanal. Chem. 388 2007 565 578 [28] A. Escosura-Muñiz A. Ambrosi A. Merkoçi Trends Anal. Chem. 27 2008 568 584