Cargando…
Solid-State Protein Junctions: Cross-Laboratory Study ShowsPreservationof Mechanism at Varying Electronic Coupling
Successful integration of proteins in solid-state electronics requires contacting them in a non-invasive fashion, with a solid conducting surface for immobilization as one such contact. The contacts can affect and even dominate the measured electronic transport. Often substrates, substrate treatment...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Elsevier
2020
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7235645/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32438319 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.isci.2020.101099 |
_version_ | 1783536002746286080 |
---|---|
author | Mukhopadhyay, Sabyasachi Karuppannan, Senthil Kumar Guo, Cunlan Fereiro, Jerry A. Bergren, Adam Mukundan, Vineetha Qiu, Xinkai Castañeda Ocampo, Olga E. Chen, Xiaoping Chiechi, Ryan C. McCreery, Richard Pecht, Israel Sheves, Mordechai Pasula, Rupali Reddy Lim, Sierin Nijhuis, Christian A. Vilan, Ayelet Cahen, David |
author_facet | Mukhopadhyay, Sabyasachi Karuppannan, Senthil Kumar Guo, Cunlan Fereiro, Jerry A. Bergren, Adam Mukundan, Vineetha Qiu, Xinkai Castañeda Ocampo, Olga E. Chen, Xiaoping Chiechi, Ryan C. McCreery, Richard Pecht, Israel Sheves, Mordechai Pasula, Rupali Reddy Lim, Sierin Nijhuis, Christian A. Vilan, Ayelet Cahen, David |
author_sort | Mukhopadhyay, Sabyasachi |
collection | PubMed |
description | Successful integration of proteins in solid-state electronics requires contacting them in a non-invasive fashion, with a solid conducting surface for immobilization as one such contact. The contacts can affect and even dominate the measured electronic transport. Often substrates, substrate treatments, protein immobilization, and device geometries differ between laboratories. Thus the question arises how far results from different laboratories and platforms are comparable and how to distinguish genuine protein electronic transport properties from platform-induced ones. We report a systematic comparison of electronic transport measurements between different laboratories, using all commonly used large-area schemes to contact a set of three proteins of largely different types. Altogether we study eight different combinations of molecular junction configurations, designed so that A(geo)of junctions varies from 10(5) to 10(−3) μm(2). Although for the same protein, measured with similar device geometry, results compare reasonably well, there are significant differences in current densities (an intensive variable) between different device geometries. Likely, these originate in the critical contact-protein coupling (∼contact resistance), in addition to the actual number of proteins involved, because the effective junction contact area depends on the nanometric roughness of the electrodes and at times, even the proteins may increase this roughness. On the positive side, our results show that understanding what controls the coupling can make the coupling a design knob. In terms of extensive variables, such as temperature, our comparison unanimously shows the transport to be independent of temperature for all studied configurations and proteins. Our study places coupling and lack of temperature activation as key aspects to be considered in both modeling and practice of protein electronic transport experiments. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-7235645 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2020 |
publisher | Elsevier |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-72356452020-05-22 Solid-State Protein Junctions: Cross-Laboratory Study ShowsPreservationof Mechanism at Varying Electronic Coupling Mukhopadhyay, Sabyasachi Karuppannan, Senthil Kumar Guo, Cunlan Fereiro, Jerry A. Bergren, Adam Mukundan, Vineetha Qiu, Xinkai Castañeda Ocampo, Olga E. Chen, Xiaoping Chiechi, Ryan C. McCreery, Richard Pecht, Israel Sheves, Mordechai Pasula, Rupali Reddy Lim, Sierin Nijhuis, Christian A. Vilan, Ayelet Cahen, David iScience Article Successful integration of proteins in solid-state electronics requires contacting them in a non-invasive fashion, with a solid conducting surface for immobilization as one such contact. The contacts can affect and even dominate the measured electronic transport. Often substrates, substrate treatments, protein immobilization, and device geometries differ between laboratories. Thus the question arises how far results from different laboratories and platforms are comparable and how to distinguish genuine protein electronic transport properties from platform-induced ones. We report a systematic comparison of electronic transport measurements between different laboratories, using all commonly used large-area schemes to contact a set of three proteins of largely different types. Altogether we study eight different combinations of molecular junction configurations, designed so that A(geo)of junctions varies from 10(5) to 10(−3) μm(2). Although for the same protein, measured with similar device geometry, results compare reasonably well, there are significant differences in current densities (an intensive variable) between different device geometries. Likely, these originate in the critical contact-protein coupling (∼contact resistance), in addition to the actual number of proteins involved, because the effective junction contact area depends on the nanometric roughness of the electrodes and at times, even the proteins may increase this roughness. On the positive side, our results show that understanding what controls the coupling can make the coupling a design knob. In terms of extensive variables, such as temperature, our comparison unanimously shows the transport to be independent of temperature for all studied configurations and proteins. Our study places coupling and lack of temperature activation as key aspects to be considered in both modeling and practice of protein electronic transport experiments. Elsevier 2020-04-25 /pmc/articles/PMC7235645/ /pubmed/32438319 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.isci.2020.101099 Text en © 2020 The Author(s) http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/). |
spellingShingle | Article Mukhopadhyay, Sabyasachi Karuppannan, Senthil Kumar Guo, Cunlan Fereiro, Jerry A. Bergren, Adam Mukundan, Vineetha Qiu, Xinkai Castañeda Ocampo, Olga E. Chen, Xiaoping Chiechi, Ryan C. McCreery, Richard Pecht, Israel Sheves, Mordechai Pasula, Rupali Reddy Lim, Sierin Nijhuis, Christian A. Vilan, Ayelet Cahen, David Solid-State Protein Junctions: Cross-Laboratory Study ShowsPreservationof Mechanism at Varying Electronic Coupling |
title | Solid-State Protein Junctions: Cross-Laboratory Study ShowsPreservationof Mechanism at Varying Electronic Coupling |
title_full | Solid-State Protein Junctions: Cross-Laboratory Study ShowsPreservationof Mechanism at Varying Electronic Coupling |
title_fullStr | Solid-State Protein Junctions: Cross-Laboratory Study ShowsPreservationof Mechanism at Varying Electronic Coupling |
title_full_unstemmed | Solid-State Protein Junctions: Cross-Laboratory Study ShowsPreservationof Mechanism at Varying Electronic Coupling |
title_short | Solid-State Protein Junctions: Cross-Laboratory Study ShowsPreservationof Mechanism at Varying Electronic Coupling |
title_sort | solid-state protein junctions: cross-laboratory study showspreservationof mechanism at varying electronic coupling |
topic | Article |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7235645/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32438319 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.isci.2020.101099 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT mukhopadhyaysabyasachi solidstateproteinjunctionscrosslaboratorystudyshowspreservationofmechanismatvaryingelectroniccoupling AT karuppannansenthilkumar solidstateproteinjunctionscrosslaboratorystudyshowspreservationofmechanismatvaryingelectroniccoupling AT guocunlan solidstateproteinjunctionscrosslaboratorystudyshowspreservationofmechanismatvaryingelectroniccoupling AT fereirojerrya solidstateproteinjunctionscrosslaboratorystudyshowspreservationofmechanismatvaryingelectroniccoupling AT bergrenadam solidstateproteinjunctionscrosslaboratorystudyshowspreservationofmechanismatvaryingelectroniccoupling AT mukundanvineetha solidstateproteinjunctionscrosslaboratorystudyshowspreservationofmechanismatvaryingelectroniccoupling AT qiuxinkai solidstateproteinjunctionscrosslaboratorystudyshowspreservationofmechanismatvaryingelectroniccoupling AT castanedaocampoolgae solidstateproteinjunctionscrosslaboratorystudyshowspreservationofmechanismatvaryingelectroniccoupling AT chenxiaoping solidstateproteinjunctionscrosslaboratorystudyshowspreservationofmechanismatvaryingelectroniccoupling AT chiechiryanc solidstateproteinjunctionscrosslaboratorystudyshowspreservationofmechanismatvaryingelectroniccoupling AT mccreeryrichard solidstateproteinjunctionscrosslaboratorystudyshowspreservationofmechanismatvaryingelectroniccoupling AT pechtisrael solidstateproteinjunctionscrosslaboratorystudyshowspreservationofmechanismatvaryingelectroniccoupling AT shevesmordechai solidstateproteinjunctionscrosslaboratorystudyshowspreservationofmechanismatvaryingelectroniccoupling AT pasularupalireddy solidstateproteinjunctionscrosslaboratorystudyshowspreservationofmechanismatvaryingelectroniccoupling AT limsierin solidstateproteinjunctionscrosslaboratorystudyshowspreservationofmechanismatvaryingelectroniccoupling AT nijhuischristiana solidstateproteinjunctionscrosslaboratorystudyshowspreservationofmechanismatvaryingelectroniccoupling AT vilanayelet solidstateproteinjunctionscrosslaboratorystudyshowspreservationofmechanismatvaryingelectroniccoupling AT cahendavid solidstateproteinjunctionscrosslaboratorystudyshowspreservationofmechanismatvaryingelectroniccoupling |