Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t7czq Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-29T08:05:46.216Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Characterization of MIPs Using Heterogeneous Binding Models

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 February 2011

Ken D. Shimizu
Ken D. Shimizu*
Affiliation:
Department of Chemistry and Biochemistry University of South Carolina Columbia, SC 29208, U.S.A.
Get access

Abstract

New methods are presented for characterizing MIPs. These methods address the problems of quantitatively comparing the binding properties of different MIPs. Heterogeneous binding models were applied to MIPs based on an exponentially decaying distribution known as the Freundlich isotherm. The Freundlich isotherm was found to accurately model the binding isotherm of the majority of non-covalently imprinted MIPs. Using this model the experimental binding isotherm can be fit in log-log form to a linear equation from which the fitting parameters can be used to plot a quantitative affinity distribution which is a plot of the number of sites with respect to the binding constant of those sites. Comparison of MIPs using this methodology allowed for simpler and more accurate assessment of the binding properties than by previous methods such as the limiting slopes analysese of curved Scatchard plots.

Type
Research Article
Information
MRS Online Proceedings Library (OPL) , Volume 723: Symposia M/O – Molecularly Imprinted Materials – Chemical and Biological Sensors-Materials and Devices , 2002 , M1.4
Copyright
Copyright © Materials Research Society 2002

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. Sellergren, B., Molecularly imprinted polymers. Man made mimics of antibodies and their applications in analytical chemistry. (Elsevier, Amsterdam, 2001).Google Scholar
2. Wulff, G., Angew. Chem., Int. Ed. Engl. 34, 1812–1832 (1995).Google Scholar
3. Sellergren, B., Shea., K. J., J. Chromatogr. A 690, 29–30 (1995).Google Scholar
4. Umpleby, R. J. II, Baxter, S. C., Chen, Y., Shah, R. N., Shimizu, K. D., Anal. Chem. 73, 4584–4591 (2001).Google Scholar
5. Whitcombe, M. J., Rodriguez, M. E., Villar, P., Vulfson., E. N., J. Am. Chem. Soc. 117, 7105–7111 (1995).Google Scholar
6. Umpleby, R. J. II, Bode, M., Shimizu, K. D., Analyst 125, 1261–65 (2000).Google Scholar
7. Umpleby, R. J. II, Baxter, S. C., Bode, M., Berch, J. K., Shah, R. N., Shimizu, K. D., Anal. Chim. Acta 435, 35–42 (2001).Google Scholar
8. Thakur, A. K., Munson, P. J., Hunston, D. L., Rodbard, D., Anal. Biochem. 103, 240–254 (1980).Google Scholar
9. Shea, K. J., Spivak, D. A., Sellergren, B., J. Am. Chem. Soc. 115, 3368–3369 (1993).Google Scholar