Enhancing sensitivity of QCM for dengue type 1 virus detection using graphene-based polymer composites

Abstract

Graphene oxide-molecularly imprinted polymer composites (GO-MIP) have attracted significant attention as recognition materials in sensing due to their outstanding properties in terms of electrical and thermal conductivity, high mechanical modulus, and the comparably straightforward way to functionalize them. The aim of this study was to design a MIP-based sensor recognition material and enhance its sensitivity by blending it with GO for sensing a harmful dengue hemorrhagic fever pathogen, namely the dengue type 1 virus (DENV-1). Polymer composites comprising GO incorporated to an acrylamide (AAM)/methacrylic acid (MAA)/methyl methacrylate (MMA)/N-vinylpyrrolidone (VP) copolymer were synthesized and compared to the “pure” MIP, i.e., the copolymer without GO. The pure polymer revealed a zeta potential of + 9.9 ± 0.5 mV, whereas GO sheets prepared have a zeta potential of − 60.3 ± 2.7 mV. This results in an overall zeta potential of − 11.2 ± 0.2 mV of the composite. Such polymer composites seem appropriate to bind the positively charged DENV-1 particle (+ 42.2 ± 2.8 mV). GO-MIP coated onto 10-MHz quartz crystal microbalance (QCM) sensors indeed revealed two times sensitivity compared to sensors based on the pure MIP. Furthermore, GO-polymer composites revealed imprinting factors of up to 21, compared to 3 of the pure MIP. When plotting the sensor characteristic in a semilogarithmic way, the composite sensor shows the linear response to DENV-1 in the concentration range from 100 to 103 pfu mL−1. The corresponding limits of detection (S/N = 3) and quantification (S/N = 10) are 0.58 and 1.94 pfu mL−1, respectively. Furthermore, imprinted polymer composites selectively bind DENV-1 without significant interference: DENV-2, DENV-3, DENV-4, respectively, yield 13–16% of DENV-1 signal. The sensor requires only about 15–20 min to obtain a result. Graphical abstract

Molecularly Imprinted Polymer-Based Sensors for SARS-CoV-2: Where Are We Now?

“…Nevertheless, the synthesis of molecularly imprinted polymers (MIPs) was boosted by Wulff and Mosbach later in the 1970s [ 22 , 23 ]. Since then, a broad spectrum of analytes including low-molecular-weight molecules, such as pharmaceuticals, sugars, toxins, narcotic drugs, pesticides, and biomacromolecules such as proteins, nucleic acids, bacteria, and viruses have been described [ 20 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 , 40 , 41 , 42 , 43 , 44 , 45 , 46 , 47 , 48 , 49 ].…”

“…Moreover, virus sample preparation requires appropriate laboratory, equipment, and experienced personnel [ 39 ]. Moreover, due to their large number of potential interaction sites and functional groups on their surfaces, heterogeneous binding sites and higher cross-reactivities can be obtained [ 20 , 37 , 39 , 55 , 58 , 59 , 60 ].…”

“…For this purpose, milder imprinting techniques such as soft lithography and electropolymerization have been exploited. Both techniques have been utilized both for proteins and viruses [ 20 , 37 , 55 , 56 , 82 , 106 , 107 , 108 , 109 , 110 , 111 , 112 ].…”

“…Moreover, it is, in some manner, superior to photolithography due to its cost-effectiveness and easy adaption for patterning surfaces in the range from micro- to nanometers [ 55 , 66 , 114 , 115 , 116 , 117 ]. In the literature, various successful examples of this method have been presented for different viruses such as tobacco mosaic virus, subtypes of influenza a virus, picornavirus, dengue type 1 virus, and classical swine fever virus [ 37 , 56 , 109 , 118 , 119 ].…”

Synthesis of Molecularly Imprinted Polymer Nanoparticles for SARS-CoV-2 Virus Detection Using Surface Plasmon Resonance

“…In the past, researchers have exploited other advanced techniques to address different drawbacks of NAT-and molecular-based detection methods. These techniques include electrochemical [9,10], quartz crystal microbalance (QCM) [11,12], surface acoustic waves (SAW) [13], surface plasmon resonance/imaging (SPR(i)) [14,15], optical fiber [16], and surface-enhanced Raman spectroscopy (SERS) [17] that have been developed for the detection of viral infections. Table 1 also lists the existing sensor methods for COVID-19 diagnosis.…”