Hostname: page-component-788cddb947-t9bwh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-10-07T21:16:39.692Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Quantitative Mechanical Mapping of Biomolecules in Fluid

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 February 2011

Chanmin Su
Affiliation:
csu@veeco.com, Veeco Instruments, Santa Barbara, California, United States
Shuiqing Hu
Affiliation:
shu@veeco.com, Veeco, Santa Barbara, California, United States
Yan Hu
Affiliation:
yhu@veeco.com, Veeco Instruments, Santa Barbara, California, United States
Natalia Erina
Affiliation:
nerina@veeco.com, Veeco Instruments, Santa Barbara, California, United States
Andrea Slade
Affiliation:
aslade@veeco.com, Veeco Instruments, Santa Barbara, California, United States
Get access

Abstract

Though atomic force microscopy (AFM) interrogates biological materials through mechanical interactions, achieving quantitative mechanical information such as modulus and adhesion at high resolution has been a challenging task. A technology for nanometer scale mechanical property mapping, peak force tapping (PFT), was developed to achieve high resolution imaging and quantitative mechanical measurements simultaneously. PFT controls instantaneous interaction force and record force spectroscopy at each pixel to calculate mechanical properties. A feedback loop maintains a constant peak force, a local maximum point in the force spectroscopy, at the level of Pico Newtons throughout the imaging process. Such high precision force controls enable application of ultra-sharp probe to image biological samples in vitro and achieve molecular resolution in protein membranes. More importantly a full suite of mechanical properties, modulus, adhesion, energy dissipation and deformation are mapped concurrent with topographic imaging. To calculate nanomechanical properties reliably cantilever spring constant and tip shape were calibrated systematically. A method to accurately determine cantilever spring constant, capable of wafer scale cantilever calibration, was developed and tested against traceable force methods. With the knowledge of tip shape, derived from morphological dilation method using a reference sample, mechanical properties measured at the nanometer scale was compared with bench mark materials ranging from 0.7 MPa to 70 GPa. The same method was also applied to OmpG membranes, Lambda DNA strings, as well as live cells. The limitation of the measurement accuracy in biology samples will be discussed.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © Materials Research Society 2010

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Binnig, G., Quate, C., Gerber, C., Physical Review Letter, 56 (1986) 930 Google Scholar
2 Butt, H., Wolff, E. K., Gould, S. A., Northern, B. Dixon, Peterson, C. M., Hansma, P. K., J Struct Bio., 105 (1990) 54 Google Scholar
3 Gimzewski, J.K., Joachim, C., Schlittler, R. R.,Langlais, V., Tang, H., Johannsen, I., Science, 281 (1998), 531 Google Scholar
4 Müller, D.J., Schoenenberger, C.-A., Büldt, G., Engel, A., Biophysical Journal, 70 (1996) 1796 Google Scholar
5 Florin, EL., Moy, VT. and Gaub, HE., Science, 264 (1994) 415 Google Scholar
6 Heinz, William F. and Hoh, Jan H., Trends in Biotechnology, 17 (1999) 143 Google Scholar
7 Krotil, HU., Stifter, T.,Waschipky, H., Weishaupt, K., Hild, S. and Marti, O., Surface and Interface Analysis, 27 (1999) 336 Google Scholar
8 Sahin, Ozgur, Magonov, Sergei, Su, Chanmin, Quate, Calvin F. & Solgaard, Olav, Nature Nanotechnology, 2 (2007) 507 Google Scholar
9 Henrik, Sudhir Husale Persson, H. J. & Sahin, Ozgur, Nature 462 (2009) 1075 Google Scholar
10 Garcia, R. and Paulo, A., Physical Review B, 60 (1999) 4961 Google Scholar
11 Su, C., Huang, L. and Kjoller, K., Ultramicroscopy, 100 (2004) 233 Google Scholar
12 Olsson, L., Lin, N., Yakimov, V., and Erlandssona, R., Journal of Applied Physics, 84 (1998) 4060 Google Scholar
13 Erina, N., Huang, L., Su, C., Rice, A., Meyer, C., Prater, C., Ginzburg, V., Meyers, G., McIntyre, R. and Lakrout, H., J. Phys.: Conf. Ser. 61 (2007) 1303 Google Scholar
14 Su, C. and Lombrozo, P., US Patent, 7,658,097, Feb., 2010; Y. Hu, S. Hu and C. Su, US Patent Application, 20100122385, May 2010Google Scholar
15 Luan, & Robbins, , Nature, 435 (2005) 16 Google Scholar
16 Tamayo, J. and García, R., Langmuir, 12 (1996) 4430 Google Scholar
17 Sader, J., Larson, I., Mulvaney, P., White, L., Review of Scientific Instruments, 66 (1995) 3789 J. Cleveland, S. Manne, D. Bocek, P. Hansma, Review of Scientific Instruments, 64 (1993) 403 P. Cumpson, J. Hedley, P. Zhdan, Nanotechnology, 14 (2003) 918Google Scholar
18 Pratt, J., Kramar, J., Newell, D. and Smith, D., Measurement Science & Technology, 16 (2005) 2129 Google Scholar
19 Gates, R., Pratt, J., Measurement Science & Technology, 17 (2006) 2852 Google Scholar
20 Hutter, J., Bechhoefer, J., Review of Scientific Instruments, 64 (1993) 1868 Google Scholar
21 Ohler, B., Review of Scientific Instruments, 78 (2007) 063701 Google Scholar
22 Swadene, J. G., Georgea, E. P. and Pharr, G. M., Journal of the Mechanics and Physics of Solids, 50 (2002) 681 Google Scholar
23 Belikov, S., Erina, N., Huang, L., Su, C. and Prater, C., J. Vac. Sci. Technol. B, 27 (2009) 984 Google Scholar
24 Derjaguin, B.V., Muller, V.M., Toropov, Yu.P., J. Colloid. Interface Sci., 53 (1975) 314 Google Scholar
25 Wang, W., Lai, K. and Xi, N., to be publishedGoogle Scholar