Patterning small-molecule biocapture surfaces: microcontact insertion printing vs.photolithography

M. J. Shuster; A. Vaish; H. H. Cao; A. I. Guttentag; J. E. McManigle; A. L. Gibb; M. M. Martinez; R. M. Nezarati; J. M. Hinds; W.-S. Liao; P. S. Weiss; A. M. Andrews

doi:10.1039/C1CC13002A

Patterning small-molecule biocapture surfaces: microcontact insertion printing vs.photolithography†‡

M. J. Shuster,^ab A. Vaish,^ab H. H. Cao,^b A. I. Guttentag,^b J. E. McManigle,^a A. L. Gibb,^a M. M. Martinez,^a R. M. Nezarati,^a J. M. Hinds,^a W.-S. Liao,^b P. S. Weiss*^ab and A. M. Andrews*^b

Author affiliations

* Corresponding authors

^a Center for Nanoscale Science, The Pennsylvania State University, University Park, USA

^b California NanoSystems Institute, UCLA, Los Angeles, USA
E-mail: aandrews@mednet.ucla.edu, psw@cnsi.ucla.edu

Abstract

Chemical patterns prepared by self-assembly, combined with soft lithography or photolithography, are directly compared. Pattern fidelity can be controlled in both cases but patterning at the low densities necessary for small-molecule probe capture of large biomolecule targets is better accomplished using microcontact insertion printing (μCIP). Surfaces patterned by μCIP are used to capture biomolecule binding partners for the small molecules dopamine and biotin.

This article is part of the themed collection: Molecule-based surface chemistry

Chemical Communications

Patterning small-molecule biocapture surfaces: microcontact insertion printing vs.photolithography†‡

Abstract

Supplementary files

Additions and corrections

Article information

Download Citation

Permissions

Patterning small-molecule biocapture surfaces: microcontact insertion printing vs.photolithography

Social activity

Search articles by author

Spotlight

Advertisements