Influence of protein on polysiloxane polymer formation: evidence for induction of complementary protein-polymer interactions

From 3D to 2D: A Review of the Molecular Imprinting of Proteins

“…Increased affinity for each template was demonstrated for its corresponding polymer (+30% for urease and +3% for BSA, when compared to opposing protein), and selectivity was shown between the two proteins. However, a similar study by the same group using Hb and Mb failed to show any imprinting effect for either MIP (60). Rebinding experiments using labeled proteins demonstrated that the bound proteins did not equilibrate with labeled proteins in solution, suggesting strong association between polymer and template, possibly hiding specificity.…”

“…All of the systems presented in this paper show enhanced rebinding of original templates, but this competitive rebinding to demonstrate true imprints for the target template is the more definitive metric. There are several cases where enhanced selectivity for the template is hidden by high cross-reactivity (60,71). This reduces the practical value of the corresponding materials.…”

“…Indeed, incubating a polymer with pronase for 160 h does not lead to a practical protocol for commercialization (60). The steps required to return a polymer back to a working level are also of importance (e.g.,, detergents such as SDS must be removed completely to ensure no bearing on rebinding).…”

“…Venton prepared imprints for urease and BSA in polysiloxane copolymers, using 3-aminopropyltriethoxysilane and tetraethylorthosilicate (60,61). The polymers were formed as monoliths and then crushed, and the entrapped proteins were removed by a pronase digestion.…”

“…Further examples of each technique are required, using a wider range of proteins. The potential demonstrated with sol-gels is high (93), but as yet only three protocols have been reported (60,62,75).…”