Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Here, we report a novel enantioselective electrochemical biosensor for the discrimination of cystine enantiomers (d- and l-cystine) using a chiral interface for the specific recognition of d- and l-cystine. The biosensor is based on reduced graphene oxide modified by β-cyclodextrin (rGO/β-CD) at the GCE surface. During the preparation of rGO/β-CD/GCE, the modified electrode surfaces were characterized by cyclic voltammetry (CV), electrochemical impedance spectroscopy (EIS) and scanning electron microscopy (SEM). The electrochemical behaviours of the d- and l-cystine were investigated using the rGO/β-CD/GCE by CV and compared to bare GCE. A clear separation between the oxidation peak potentials of d- and l-cystine was observed at 1.32 and 1.42 V, respectively. The electrochemical discrimination performance of the fabricated chiral sensor was also examined by differential pulse voltammetry (DPV) in a mixed solution of d- and l-cystine. In addition, the DPV technique was used for the determination of d- and l-cystine at low concentration values in the range of 1.0-10.0 μM. To investigate the amperometric response of rGO/β-CD/GCE towards d- and l-cystine, the chronoamperometry technique was used in the concentration range of 10.0-100.0 μM. The interactions of the enantiomers with rGO/β-CD were modelled by molecular docking using AutoDock Vina, and the interaction energies were predicted to be -4.8 and -5.3 kcal mol(-1) for d- and l-cystine, respectively. The corresponding values of binding constants were calculated to be 3.32 × 10(3) and 7.71 × 10(3) M(-1), respectively. The experimental and molecular docking results indicate that the rGO/β-CD/GCE has a different affinity for each enantiomer.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Zor et al. (2014) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: