Solid-State Protein Junctions: Cross-Laboratory Study Shows Preservation of Mechanism at Varying Electronic Coupling

Mukhopadhyay, S., Karuppannan, S. K., Guo, C., Fereiro, J. A., Bergren, A., Mukundan, V., Qiu, X., Ocampo, O. E. C., Chen, X., Chiechi, R. C., McCreery, R., Pecht, I., Sheves, M., Pasula, R. R., Lim, S., Nijhuis, C. A., Vilan, A. & Cahen, D., 22-May-2020, In : iScience . 23, 5, 44 p., 101099.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleAcademicpeer-review

Copy link to clipboard



  • Sabyasachi Mukhopadhyay
  • Senthil Kumar Karuppannan
  • Cunlan Guo
  • Jerry A. Fereiro
  • Adam Bergren
  • Vineetha Mukundan
  • Xinkai Qiu
  • Olga E. Castaneda Ocampo
  • Xiaoping Chen
  • Ryan C. Chiechi
  • Richard McCreery
  • Israel Pecht
  • Mordechai Sheves
  • Rupali Reddy Pasula
  • Sierin Lim
  • Christian A. Nijhuis
  • Ayelet Vilan
  • David Cahen

Successful integration of proteins in solid-state electronics requires contacting them in a non-invasive fashion, with a solid conducting surface for immobilization as one such contact. The contacts can affect and even dominate the measured electronic transport. Often substrates, substrate treatments, protein immobilization, and device geometries differ between laboratories. Thus the question arises how far results from different laboratories and platforms are comparable and how to distinguish genuine protein electronic transport properties from platform-induced ones. We report a systematic comparison of electronic transport measurements between different laboratories, using all commonly used large-area schemes to contact a set of three proteins of largely different types. Altogether we study eight different combinations of molecular junction configurations, designed so that A(geo) of junctions varies from 10(5) to 10(-3) mu m(2). Although for the same protein, measured with similar device geometry, results compare reasonably well, there are significant differences in current densities (an intensive variable) between different device geometries. Likely, these originate in the critical contact-protein coupling (similar to contact resistance), in addition to the actual number of proteins involved, because the effective junction contact area depends on the nanometric roughness of the electrodes and at times, even the proteins may increase this roughness. On the positive side, our results show that understanding what controls the coupling can make the coupling a design knob. In terms of extensive variables, such as temperature, our comparison unanimously shows the transport to be independent of temperature for all studied configurations and proteins. Our study places coupling and lack of temperature activation as key aspects to be considered in both modeling and practice of protein electronic transport experiments.

Original languageEnglish
Article number101099
Number of pages44
Issue number5
Publication statusPublished - 22-May-2020



Download statistics

No data available

ID: 127598097