Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gxg78 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T11:11:02.342Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Exploring Reaction Pathways of Single-Molecule Interactions through the Manipulation and Tracking of a Potential-Confined Microsphere in Three Dimensions

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 February 2011

Wesley P. Wong ,
Volkmar Heinrich  and
Evan Evans
Wesley P. Wong
Affiliation:
Department of Biomedical Engineering, Boston University, Boston, MA 02215, USA. Department of Physics, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA 02138, USA.
Volkmar Heinrich
Affiliation:
Department of Biomedical Engineering, Boston University, Boston, MA 02215, USA.
Evan Evans
Affiliation:
Department of Biomedical Engineering, Boston University, Boston, MA 02215, USA. Department of Physics, Boston University, Boston, MA 02215, USA.
Get access

Abstract

Weak non-covalent interactions between single molecules govern many aspects of microscopic biological structure and function, e.g. cell adhesion, protein folding, molecular motors and mechanical enzymes. The dynamics of a weak biomolecular bond are suitably characterized by the kinetic transport of molecular states over an effective energy landscape defined along one or more optimal reaction pathways. Motivated by earlier developments [1,2], we present a novel method to quantify subtle features of weak chemical transitions by analyzing the 3D Brownian fluctuations of a functionalized microsphere held near a reactive substrate. A weak optical-trapping potential is used to confine motion of the bead to a nanoscale domain, and to apply a controlled bias field to the interaction. Stochastic interruptions in the monitored bead dynamics report formation and release of single molecular bonds. In addition, variations in the motion of a bead linked to the substrate via a biomolecule (a protein or nucleic acid) signal conformational changes in the molecule, such as the folding/unfolding of protein domains or the unzipping of DNA. Thus, energy landscapes of complex biomolecular interactions are mapped by identifying distinct fluctuation regimes in the 3D motion of a test microsphere, and by quantifying the rates of transition between these regimes as mediated by the applied confining potential.

The 3D motion of the bead is tracked using a reflection interference technique combined with high-speed video microscopy. The position of the bead is measured over 100 times per second with a lateral resolution of ∼3–5 nm and a vertical resolution of ∼1–2 nm. Crucial to the interpretation of results, a Brownian Dynamics simulation has been developed to relate the statistics of bead displacements to molecular-scale kinetics of chemical interactions and structural transitions. The experimental approach is designed to enlarge the scope of current techniques (e.g. dynamic force spectroscopy [3]) to encompass near-equilibrium forward/reverse transitions of weak-complex interactions with multiple binding configurations and more than one transition pathway.

Type
Research Article
Information
MRS Online Proceedings Library (OPL) , Volume 790: Symposium P – Dynamics in Small Confining Systems–2003 , 2003 , P5.1
Copyright
Copyright © Materials Research Society 2004

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

REFERENCES

1. Florin, E.-L., Pralle, A., Stelzer, E. H. K., and Hörber, J. K. H., Appl. Phys. A 66, S75-S78 (1998).Google Scholar
2. Rohrbach, A., Florin, E., and Stelzer, E. H. K., Proc. SPIE 4431, 75–86 (2001).Google Scholar
3. Evans, E., Ann. Rev. Biophys. & Biomol. Structure 30, 105–128 (2001).Google Scholar
4. Evans, E. and Ritchie, K., Biophys. J. 72, 1541–1555 (1997).Google Scholar
5. Evans, E., and Williams, P., in Physics of Bio-Molecules and Cells, Ecoles des HOUCHES d'Ete LXXV. (EDP Sciences - Springer-Verlag, 2002) pp. 145–185;Google Scholar
Williams, P. and Evans, E., in Physics of Bio-Molecules and Cells, Ecoles des HOUCHES d'Ete LXXV. (EDP Sciences - Springer-Verlag, 2002) pp. 186–203.Google Scholar
6. Bell, G. I., Science 200, 618–627 (1978).Google Scholar
7. Evans, E., Heinrich, V., Leung, A., and Zhu, C. (in preparation)Google Scholar
8. Heinrich, V., Ritchie, K., Mohandas, N., and Evans, E., Biophys. J. 81, 1452–1463 (2001).Google Scholar
9. Rädler, J. and Sackmann, E., Langmuir 8, 848–853 (1992).Google Scholar
10. Sheetz, M. P. (editor), Laser tweezers in cell biology. Volume 55 of Methods in Cell Biology (Academic Press, 1998).Google Scholar
11. Ermak, D. L. and McCammon, J. A., J. Chem. Phys. 69 (4), 1352–1360 (1978).Google Scholar
12. Doi, M. and Edwards, S. F., The Theory of Polymer Dynamics (Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1986) pp. 46–90.Google Scholar
13. Perkins, G. S. and Jones, R. B., Physica A 1889, 447–477 (1992).Google Scholar
14. Goldman, A. J., Cox, R. G., and Brenner, H., Chem. Eng. Sci. 22, 637–651 (1967).Google Scholar
15. Israelachvili, J. I., Intermolecular and Surface Forces, 2nd ed. (Academic Press, New York, 1991) pp. 450.Google Scholar