Protein-resistant coatings for glass and metal oxide surfaces derived from oligo(ethylene glycol)-terminated alkyltrichlorosilanes

Lee, Seok-Won; Laibinis, Paul E.

doi:10.1016/s0142-9612(98)00044-1

Cited by 170 publications

(143 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

131

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…PEO-brushes were characterized by various surface-sensitive techniques. Water contact angles indicated that pristine glass and silica surfaces were more hydrophilic than the PEO-coated surfaces, as in other studies (Park et al, 1998;Lee & Laibinis, 1998). The high contact angle hysteresis (>25 u ) found for both PEO-coated surfaces suggests penetration of water in the PEO layer and mobility of the PEO chains (Andrade et al, 1985).…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 64%

Inhibition of adhesion of yeasts and bacteria by poly(ethylene oxide)-brushes on glass in a parallel plate flow chamber

et al. 2003

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Poly(ethylene oxide) (PEO)-brushes are generally recognized as protein-repellent surfaces, and although a role in discouraging microbial adhesion has been established for some strains and species, no study exists on the effects of PEO-brushes on a large variety of bacterial and yeast strains. In this paper, a PEO-brush has been covalently attached to glass and silica by reaction in a polymer melt. Subsequently, the presence of a PEO-brush was demonstrated using contact angle measurements, X-ray photoelectron spectroscopy and ellipsometry. For five bacterial (Staphylococcus epidermidis, Staphylococcus aureus, Streptococcus salivarius, Escherichia coli and Pseudomonas aeruginosa) and two yeast strains (Candida albicans and Candida tropicalis), adhesion to PEO-brushes was compared with adhesion to bare glass in a parallel plate flow chamber. The initial deposition rates of Sta. epidermidis, Sta. aureus and Str. salivarius to glass were relatively high, between 2400 and 2600 cm "2 s "1 , while E. coli and P. aeruginosa deposited much more slowly. The initial deposition rates of the yeasts to glass were 144 and 444 cm "2 s "1 for C. albicans GB 1/2 and C. tropicalis GB 9/9, respectively. Coating of the glass surface with a PEO-brush yielded more than 98 % reduction in bacterial adhesion, although for the more hydrophobic P. aeruginosa a smaller reduction was observed. For both yeast species adhesion suppression was less effective than for the bacteria and here too the more hydrophobic C. tropicalis showed less reduction than the more hydrophilic C. albicans. The PEO-brush had a thickness of 22 nm in water, as inferred from ellipsometry. Assuming that on bare glass the adhered micro-organisms are positioned only a few nanometers away from the surface and that the brush keeps them at a distance of 22 nm, it is calculated that the brush yields a sevenfold attenuation of the Lifshitz-Van der Waals attraction to the surface between the micro-organisms and the surface. Decreased Lifshitz-van der Waals attraction may be responsible for the suppression of the microbial adhesion observed.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 64%

Inhibition of adhesion of yeasts and bacteria by poly(ethylene oxide)-brushes on glass in a parallel plate flow chamber

et al. 2003

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…To alleviate this problem, the sensor chamber is often preexposed to a solution containing a blocking agent such as bovine serum albumin (BSA) or salmon sperm DNA which nonspecifically adsorbs (hopefully not occupying the probe binding sites), reducing subsequent nonspecific binding from the actual sample. Antifouling agents such as polyethylene glycol can also be deposited on areas surrounding the sensor to prevent target depletion via nonspecific binding [62][63][64]. Use of blocking agents is not a systematic science, but several approaches have been found to work in specific situations (e.g., [65][66][67]).…”

Section: Selectivitymentioning

confidence: 99%

Label‐Free Impedance Biosensors: Opportunities and Challenges

2007

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Impedance biosensors are a class of electrical biosensors that show promise for point-of-care and other applications due to low cost, ease of miniaturization, and label-free operation. Unlabeled DNA and protein targets can be detected by monitoring changes in surface impedance when a target molecule binds to an immobilized probe. The affinity capture step leads to challenges shared by all label-free affinity biosensors; these challenges are discussed along with others unique to impedance readout. Various possible mechanisms for impedance change upon target binding are discussed. We critically summarize accomplishments of past label-free impedance biosensors and identify areas for future research.

show abstract

“…Grafted polymers and self-assembled monolayers are methods used to introduce functionality to surfaces, as well as establishing a packing density on the surface and specific orientation of the functionality. Polyethylene glycol (PEG), or polyethyleneoxide (PEO), functionalized surfaces are examples of hydrophilic coatings that offer excellent resistance to protein and cellular adhesion as both grafted polymer and SAM films (19,20,21,22,23,24). In contrast, hydrophobic surfaces, such as octadecyltrichlorosilane SAMs, tend to adsorb proteins as a monolayer thick biofilm (25,26,27).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Protein Adhesion on SAM Coated Semiconductor Wafers: Hydrophobic versus Hydrophilic Surfaces

Follstaedt¹,

Cheung²,

Gourley³

et al. 2000

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The interface of biology and semiconductor materials has become an important topic of interest as researchers are merging living organisms with microelectromechanical systems (MEMS) in the pursuit of new microfabricated biomedical devices. Biological cells interface with the semiconductor surface through a host of interactions that are mediated by protein adhesion and film formation. To better understand this interface, we have conducted protein adsorption studies of a model system using bovine serum albumin (BSA) and compared it to the adsorption from a complex protein mixture of cell growth serum on uncoated and self-assembled monolayer (SAM) coated silicon wafers. Several characterization techniques -AFM, ellipsometry, water contact angle, and fluorescence microscopy -were used to evaluate the protein-adsorbed layer. An uncoated silicon surface was most attractive to proteins, forming a 70 Å thick film from a solution of BSA at a concentration comparable to that in cell growth serum. Coating with the hydrophobic octadecyltrimethoxysilane (OTMS) SAM reduced protein adhesion by ~15%. In contrast, a hydrophilic N-(triethoxysilylpropyl)-O-polyethyleneoxide urethane (TESP) SAM inhibited protein adhesion by greater than 50%. Protein adhesion studies with cell growth sera containing complex mixtures of proteins paralleled the BSA adsorption studies, clearly identifying the TESP coated surface as a promising biocompatible coating.4

show abstract

Protein-resistant coatings for glass and metal oxide surfaces derived from oligo(ethylene glycol)-terminated alkyltrichlorosilanes

Cited by 170 publications

References 0 publications

Inhibition of adhesion of yeasts and bacteria by poly(ethylene oxide)-brushes on glass in a parallel plate flow chamber

Inhibition of adhesion of yeasts and bacteria by poly(ethylene oxide)-brushes on glass in a parallel plate flow chamber

Label‐Free Impedance Biosensors: Opportunities and Challenges

Protein Adhesion on SAM Coated Semiconductor Wafers: Hydrophobic versus Hydrophilic Surfaces

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About