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...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: 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
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