Open Access



Main Article Content

Ajinkya Raut
Peter Renner
Rick Wang
Serge Kazadi
Siddhi Mehta
Yan Chen
Hong Liangcorresponding author


Polymer brushes are macromolecular structures with polymer chains tethered to a surface resembling a brush. They have shown variety of uses in biological applications. Because of the nature of crafted polymers, the functionalized surfaces exhibit unique functions such as low friction, altered adhesion, protein binding and selective adsorption. Functionalization can be controlled by changing parameters such as grafting densities, chemical configurations, shapes and thickness. In this review, a particular emphasis has been provided for studies related to biological applications of polymer brushes based on their ultra-low friction, hydrophilic elongated surfaces, and binding properties. It provides useful information for researches and labs working on finding better solutions for drug delivery, arthritis, artificial joints, antibiofouling coatings and protein immobilization and purification.

grafting density, drug delivery, anti-biofouling, ultra-low friction, protein immobilization

Article Details

Supporting Agencies
Peter Renner was supported by the National Science Foundation (NSF) Graduate Research Fellowship.
How to Cite
Raut, A., Renner, P., Wang, R., Kazadi, S., Mehta, S., Chen, Y., & Liang, H. (2021). Roles of polymer brushes in biological applications. Advances in Biochips, 2(1), 12-23.


  1. Murat M and Grest GS. Structure of a grafted polymer brush: a molecular dynamics simulation. Macromolecules, 1989, 22(10): 4054-4059.
  2. Alexander S. Adsorption of chain molecules with a polar head a scaling description. Journal De Physique, 1977, 38(8): 983-987.
  3. de Gennes P. Conformations of polymers attached to an interface. Macromolecules, 1980, 13(5): 1069-1075.
  4. Milner ST, Witten TA and Cates ME. Theory of the grafted polymer brush. Macromolecules, 1988, 21(8): 2610-2619.
  5. De Gennes P. Polymers at an interface: a simplified view. Advances in Colloid & Interface Science, 1987, 27(3-4): 189-209.
  6. Milner S, Witten T and Cates M. Effects of polydispersity in the end-grafted polymer brush. Macromolecules, 1989, 22(2): 853-861.
  7. Milner ST. Polymer brushes. Science, 1991, 251(4996): 905-914.
  8. Halperin A, Tirrell M and Lodge T. Tethered chains in polymer microstructures. In: Macromolecules: Synthesis, Order and Advanced Properties. Springer,1992: 31-71.
  9. Raviv U, Giasson S, Kampf N, et al. Lubrication by charged polymers. Nature, 2003, 425(6954): 163-165.
  10. Sakata H, Kobayashi M, Otsuka H, et al. Tribological properties of poly (methyl methacrylate) brushes prepared by surface-initiated atom transfer radical polymerization. Polymer Journal, 2005, 37(10): 767-775.
  11. Kobayashi M, Terayama Y, Hosaka N, et al. Friction behavior of high-density poly (2- methacryloyloxyethyl phosphorylcholine) brush in aqueous media. Soft Matter, 2007, 3(6): 740-746.
  12. Chen M, Briscoe WH, Armes SP, et al. Lubrication at physiological pressures by polyzwitterionic brushes. science, 2009, 323(5922): 1698-1701.
  13. Tsujii Y, Nomura A, Okayasu K, et al. AFM studies on microtribology of concentrated polymer brushes in solvents. In IOP Publishing, 2009: 012031.
  14. Kitano K, Inoue Y, Matsuno R, et al. Nanoscale evaluation of lubricity on well-defined polymer brush surfaces using QCM-D and AFM. Colloids Surf B Biointerfaces, 2009, 74(1): 350-357.
  15. Ishikawa T, Kobayashi M and Takahara A. Macroscopic frictional properties of poly (1-(2- methacryloyloxy) ethyl-3-butyl imidazolium bis (trifluoromethanesulfonyl)-imide) brush surfaces in an ionic liquid. ACS Appl Mater Interfaces, 2010, 2(4): 1120-1128.
  16. Nomura A, Okayasu K, Ohno K, et al. Lubrication mechanism of concentrated polymer brushes in solvents: effect of solvent quality and thereby swelling state. Macromolecules, 2011, 44(12): 5013-5019.
  17. Chen M, Briscoe WH, Armes SP, et al. Polyzwitterionic brushes: Extreme lubrication by design. European Polymer Journal, 2011, 47(4): 511-523.
  18. Kobayashi M, Terada M and Takahara A. Reversible adhesive-free nanoscale adhesion utilizing oppositely charged polyelectrolyte brushes. Soft Matter, 2011, 7(12): 5717-5722.
  19. Nomura A, Ohno K, Fukuda T, et al. Lubrication mechanism of concentrated polymer brushes in solvents: effect of solvent viscosity. Polymer Chemistry, 2012, 3(1): 148-153.
  20. Kobayashi M, Terayama Y, Yamaguchi H, et al. Wettability and antifouling behavior on the surfaces of superhydrophilic polymer brushes. Langmuir, 2012, 28(18): 7212-7222.
  21. Bielecki RM, Benetti EM, Kumar D, et al. Lubrication with oil-compatible polymer brushes. Tribology Letters, 2012, 45(3): 477-487.
  22. Kobayashi M, Tanaka H, Minn M, et al. Interferometry study of aqueous lubrication on the surface of polyelectrolyte brush. Acs Applied Materials & Interfaces, 2014, 6(22): 20365-20371.
  23. Mocny P and Klok H-A. Tribology of surface-grafted polymer brushes. Molecular Systems Design & Engineering, 2016, 1(2): 141-154.
  24. Orski SV, Fries KH, Sontag SK, et al. Fabrication of nanostructures using polymer brushes. Journal of Materials Chemistry, 2011, 21(37): 14135-14149.
  25. McCutchen CW. The frictional properties of animal joints. Wear, 1962, 5(1): 1-17.
  26. Yu Y, Sun H and Cheng C. Brush polymer-based nanostructures for drug delivery. In: Nanostructures for Drug Delivery. Elsevier, 2017: 271-298.
  27. Ünal H. Antibiofilm Coatings. In: Handbook of Antimicrobial Coatings . Elsevier, 2018: 301-319.
  28. Jain P, Baker GL and Bruening ML. Applications of Polymer Brushes in Protein Analysis and Purification. Annual Review of Analytical Chemistry, 2009, 2(1): 387-408.
  29. D˙edinait˙e A. Biomimetic lubrication. Soft Matter, 2012, 8(2): 273-284.
  30. Chen M, Briscoe WH, Armes SP, et al. Lubrication at Physiological Pressures by Polyzwitterionic Brushes. Science, 2009, 323(5922): 1698-1701.
  31. Raviv U, Giasson S, Kampf N, et al. Lubrication by charged polymers. Nature, 2003, 425(6954): 163-165.
  32. Kobayashi M and Takahara A. Tribological properties of hydrophilic polymer brushes under wet conditions. Chemical Record, 2010, 10(4): 208-216.
  33. Bielecki RM, Crobu M and Spencer ND. Polymer-Brush Lubrication in Oil: Sliding Beyond the Stribeck Curve. Tribology Letters, 2013, 49(1): 263-272.
  34. M. Espinosa-Marzal R, M. Bielecki R and D. Spencer N. Understanding the role of viscous solvent confinement in the tribological behavior of polymer brushes: a bioinspired approach. Soft Matter, 2013, 9(44): 10572-10585.
  35. Bielecki RM, Doll P and Spencer ND. Ultrathin, Oil-Compatible, Lubricious Polymer Coatings: A Comparison of Grafting-To and Grafting-From Strategies. Tribology Letters, 2013, 49(1): 273-280.
  36. Ma L, Gaisinskaya-Kipnis A, Kampf N, et al. Origins of hydration lubrication. Nature Communications, 2015, 6(1): 6060.
  37. Kajinami N and Matsumoto M. Polymer brush in articular cartilage lubrication: Nanoscale modelling and simulation. Biophysics and Physicobiology, 2019, 16: 466-472. 466
  38. Liu G, Liu Z, Li N, et al. Hairy Polyelectrolyte Brushes-Grafted Thermosensitive Microgels as Artificial Synovial Fluid for Simultaneous Biomimetic Lubrication and Arthritis Treatment. Acs Applied Materials & Interfaces, 2014, 6(22): 20452-20463.
  39. Andronescu E and Grumezescu AM. Nanostructures for drug delivery. Amsterdam, Netherlands: Elsevier, 2017: 985. (Nanostructures in therapeutic medicine series).
  40. Sano K, Nakajima T, Choyke PL, et al. Markedly Enhanced Permeability and Retention Effects Induced by Photo-immunotherapy of Tumors. ACS Nano, 2013, 7(1): 717-724.
  41. Yu Y, Chen C-K, Law W-C, et al. A degradable brush polymer-drug conjugate for pH-responsive release of doxorubicin. Polym Chem. 2015;6(6):953-61.
  42. Du J-Z, Tang L-Y, Song W-J, et al. Evaluation of Polymeric Micelles from Brush Polymer with Poly("-caprolactone)- b -Poly(ethylene glycol) Side Chains as Drug Carrier. Biomacromolecules, 2009, 10(8): 2169-2174.
  43. Zhao P, Liu L, Feng X, et al. Molecular Nanoworm with PCL Core and PEO Shell as a Non-spherical Carrier for Drug Delivery. Macromolecular Rapid Communications, 2012, 33(16): 1351-1355.
  44. Johnson JA, Lu YY, Burts AO, et al. Drug-Loaded, Bivalent-Bottle-Brush Polymers by Graft-through ROMP. Macromolecules, 2010, 43(24): 10326-10335.
  45. Johnson JA, Lu YY, Burts AO, et al. Core-Clickable PEG- Branch -Azide Bivalent-Bottle-Brush Polymers by ROMP: Grafting-Through and Clicking-To. Journal of the American Chemical Society, 2011, 133(3): 559-566.
  46. Yu Y, Chen C-K, Law W-C, et al. Well-Defined Degradable Brush Polymer-Drug Conjugates for Sustained Delivery of Paclitaxel. Molecular Pharmaceutics, 2013, 10(3): 867-874.
  47. Zou J, Yu Y, Li Y, et al. Well-defined diblock brush polymer-drug conjugates for sustained delivery of paclitaxel. Biomaterials science, 2015, 3(7): 1078-1084.
  48. Yang YQ, Zheng LS, Guo XD, et al. pH-Sensitive Micelles Self-Assembled from Amphiphilic Copolymer Brush for Delivery of Poorly Water-Soluble Drugs. Biomacromolecules, 2011, 12(1): 116-122.
  49. Nowinski AK, Sun F, White AD, et al. Sequence, Structure, and Function of Peptide Self-Assembled Monolayers. Journal of the American Chemical Society, 2012, 134(13): 6000-6005.
  50. White AD, Nowinski AK, Huang W, et al. Decoding nonspecific interactions from nature. Chemical Science, 2012, 3(12): 3488-3494.
  51. Gottenbos B, van der Mei HC, Klatter F, et al. In vitro and in vivo antimicrobial activity of covalently coupled quaternary ammonium silane coatings on silicone rubber. Biomaterials, 2002, 23(6): 1417- 1423.
  52. Gudipati CS, Finlay JA, Callow JA, et al. The Antifouling and Fouling-Release Perfomance of Hyperbranched Fluoropolymer (HBFP)-Poly(ethylene glycol) (PEG) Composite Coatings Evaluated by Adsorption of Biomacromolecules and the Green Fouling Alga Ulva. Langmuir, 2005, 21(7): 3044-3053.
  53. Lienkamp K, Madkour AE, Kumar K, et al. Antimicrobial Polymers Prepared by Ring-Opening Metathesis Polymerization: Manipulating Antimicrobial Properties by Organic Counterion and Charge Density Variation. Chemistry - A European Journal, 2009, 15(43): 11715-11722.
  54. Cheng G, Li G, Xue H, et al. Zwitterionic carboxybetaine polymer surfaces and their resistance to long-term biofilm formation. Biomaterials, 2009, 30(28): 5234-5240.
  55. Zhang Z, Zhang M, Chen S, et al. Blood compatibility of surfaces with superlow protein adsorption. Biomaterials, 2008, 29(32): 4285-4291.
  56. Kathmann EE, White LA and McCormick CL. Water soluble polymers: 70. Effects of methylene versus propylene spacers in the pH and electrolyte responsiveness of zwitterionic copolymers incorporating carboxybetaine monomers. Polymer, 1997, 38(4): 879-886.
  57. Viklund C and Irgum K. Synthesis of porous zwitterionic sulfobetaine monoliths and characterization of their interaction with proteins. Macromolecules, 2000, 33(7): 2539-2544.
  58. Cao B, Tang Q, Li L, et al. Switchable antimicrobial and antifouling hydrogels with enhanced mechanical properties. Advanced Healthcare Materials, 2013, 2(8): 1096-1102.
  59. Bernards MT, Cheng G, Zhang Z, et al. Nonfouling polymer brushes via surface-initiated, twocomponent atom transfer radical polymerization. Macromolecules, 2008, 41(12): 4216-4219.
  60. Cheng G, Xue H, Zhang Z, et al. A switchable biocompatible polymer surface with self-sterilizing and nonfouling capabilities. Angewandte Chemie, 2008, 120(46): 8963-8966.
  61. Yang W, Lin P, Cheng D, et al. Contribution of charges in polyvinyl alcohol networks to marine antifouling. ACS Appl Mater Interfaces, 2017, 9(21): 18295-18304.
  62. Yandi W, Mieszkin S, di Fino A, et al. Charged hydrophilic polymer brushes and their relevance for understanding marine biofouling. Biofouling, 2016, 32(6): 609-625.
  63. Di Fino A, Petrone L, Aldred N, et al. Correlation between surface chemistry and settlement behaviour in barnacle cyprids (Balanus improvisus). Biofouling, 2014, 30(2): 143-152.
  64. Majumdar P, Lee E, Patel N, et al. Development of environmentally friendly, antifouling coatings based on tethered quaternary ammonium salts in a crosslinked polydimethylsiloxane matrix. Journal of Coatings Technology & Research, 2008, 5(4): 405.
  65. Yang W, Zhao W, Liu Y, et al. The effect of wetting property on anti-fouling/foul-release performance under quasi-static/hydrodynamic conditions. Progress in Organic Coatings: An International Review Journal, 2016, 95: 64-71.
  66. Wan F, Pei X, Yu B, et al. Grafting polymer brushes on biomimetic structural surfaces for anti-algae fouling and foul release. Acs Applied Materials & Interfaces, 2012, 4(9): 4557-4565.
  67. Du T, Ma S, Pei X, et al. Bio-inspired design and fabrication of micro/nano-brush dual structural surfaces for switchable oil adhesion and antifouling. Small, 2017, 13(4): 1602020.
  68. Sun L, Dai J, Baker GL, et al. High-Capacity, Protein-Binding Membranes Based on Polymer Brushes Grown in Porous Substrates. Chemistry of Materials, 2006, 18(17): 4033-4039.
  69. Dai J, Baker GL and Bruening ML. Use of Porous Membranes Modified with Polyelectrolyte Multilayers as Substrates for Protein Arrays with Low Nonspecific Adsorption. Analytical Chemistry, 2006, 78(1): 135-140.
  70. Bratek-Skicki A, Cristaudo V, Savocco J, et al. Mixed Polymer Brushes for the Selective Capture and Release of Proteins. Biomacromolecules, 2019, 20(2): 778-789.
  71. Jiang L and Ye L. Nanoparticle-supported temperature responsive polymer brushes for affinity separation of histidine-tagged recombinant proteins. Acta biomaterialia, 2019, 94: 447-458.
  72. Trmcic-Cvitas J, Hasan E, Ramstedt M, et al. Biofunctionalized Protein Resistant Oligo(ethylene glycol)-Derived Polymer Brushes as Selective Immobilization and Sensing Platforms. Biomacromolecules, 2009, 10(10): 2885-2894.