Table 2.
NP | Ligand | Kd (nM) | n | ΔH (kJ/mol) | ΔG (kJ/mol) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
02 MIP32 | DTHFPI | 6 ± 3 | 0.4 ± 0.1 | −261 ± 18 | −47 ± 2 |
02 MIP200 | DTHFPI | 7 ± 1 | 0.4 ± 0.1 | −128 ± 25 | −46 ± 1 |
05 MIP32 | DTHFPI | 3 ± 1 | 0.4 ± 0.1 | −177 ± 14 | −49 ± 1 |
05 MIP200 | DTHFPI | 5 ± 3 | 0.5 ± 0.1 | −131 ± 4 | −48 ± 2 |
05 MIP200 | Hepcidin-25 | 13 ± 2 | 0.3 ± 0.1 | −463 ± 46 | −51 ± 9 |
05 MIP200 | Hepcidin-20 | – | – | – | – |
05 MIP200 | THFDPI | 19 ± 5 | 0.5 ± 0.1 | −395 ± 27 | −37 ± 2 |
05 MIP200 | NR10 | – | – | – | – |
02 NIP | DTHFPI | – | – | – | – |
05 NIP | DTHFPI | – | – | – | – |
05 NIP | Hepcidin-25 | – | – | – | – |
Experiments were performed by titrating 1.2 µM NPs with 4 µM ligand: dissociation constant (Kd), binding stoichiometry (n), enthalpy and Gibbs free energy variation. The heat contribution of control NPs was subtracted from MIP NPs, thus the resulting interactions are primarily driven by specific binding sites. Thermograms in Additional file 1