Lipid Exchange during Contact between Oppositely Charged Lipid Bilayers

A time-resolved study on the interaction of oppositely charged bicelles--implications on the charged lipid exchange kinetics

Time-resolved small-angle X-ray scattering was applied to study charged lipid exchange between oppositely charged disc-shaped bicelles. The exchange of charged lipids gradually reduces the surface charge density and weakens the electrostatic attraction between the oppositely charged bicelles which form alternately stacked aggregates upon mixing. Initially, at a high surface charge density with almost no free water layer between the stacked bicelles, fast exchange kinetics dominate the exchange process. At a later stage with a lower surface charge density and a larger water gap between the stacked bicelles, slow exchange kinetics take over. The fast exchange kinetics are correlated with the close contact of the bicelles when there is almost no free water layer between the tightly bound bicelles with a charged lipid exchange time constant as short as 20-40 min. When the water gap becomes large enough to have a free water layer between the stacked bicelles, the fast lipid exchange kinetics are taken over by slow lipid exchange kinetics with time constants around 200-300 min, which are comparable to the typical time constant of lipid exchange between vesicles in aqueous solution. These two kinds of exchange mode fit well with the lipid exchange models of transient hemifusion for the fast mode and monomer exchange for the slow mode.

Lipid exchange and transfer on nanoparticle supported lipid bilayers: effect of defects, ionic strength, and size

Lipid exchange/transfer has been compared for zwitterionic 1,2-dimyristoyl-sn-glycero-3-phosphocholine (DMPC) and 1,2-dimyristoyl-d54-sn-glycero-3-phosphocholine (DMPC) small unilamellar vesicles (SUVs) and for the same lipids on silica (SiO2) nanoparticle supported lipid bilayers (NP-SLBs) as a function of ionic strength, temperature, temperature cycling, and NP size, above the main gel-to-liquid crystal phase transition temperature, Tm, using d- and h-DMPC and DPPC. Increasing ionic strength decreases the exchange kinetics for the SUVs, but more so for the NP-SLBs, due to better packing of the lipids and increased attraction between the lipid and support. When the NP-SLBs (or SUVs) are cycled above and below Tm, the exchange rate increases compared with exchange at the same temperature without cycling, for similar total times, suggesting that defects provide sites for more facile removal and thus exchange of lipids. Defects can occur: (i) at the phase boundaries between coexisting gel and fluid phases at Tm; (ii) in bare regions of exposed SiO2 that form during NP-SLB formation due to mismatched surface areas of lipid and NPs; and (iii) during cycling as the result of changes in area of the lipids at Tm and mismatched thermal expansion coefficient between the lipids and SiO2 support. Exchange rates are faster for NP-SLBs prepared with the nominal amount of lipid required to form a NP-SLB compared with NP-SLBs that have been prepared with excess lipids to minimize SiO2 patches. Nanosystems prepared with equimolar mixtures of NP-SLBs composed of d-DMPC (d(DMPC)-NP-SLB) and SUVs composed of h-DMPC (h(DMPC)-SUV) show that the calorimetric transition of the "donor" h(DMPC)-SUV decreases in intensity without an initial shift in Tm, indicating that the "acceptor" d(DMPC)-NP-SLB can accommodate more lipids, through either further fusion or insertion of lipids into the distal monolayer. Exchange for d/h(DMPC)-NP-SLB is in the order 100 nm SiO2 > 45 nm SiO2 > 5 nm SiO2.

Simulations of lipid transfer between a supported lipid bilayer and adsorbing vesicles

Recent experiments demonstrate transfer of lipid molecules between a charged, supported lipid membrane (SLB) and vesicles of opposite charge when the latter adsorb on the SLB. A simple phenomenological bead model has been developed to simulate this process. Beads were defined to be of three types, 'n', 'p', and '0', representing POPS (negatively charged), POEPC (positively charged), and POPC (neutral but zwitterionic) lipids, respectively. Phenomenological bead-bead interaction potentials and lipid transfer rate constants were used to account for the overall interaction and transfer kinetics. Using different bead mixtures in both the adsorbing vesicle and in the SLB (representing differently composed/charged vesicles and SLBs as in the reported experiments), we clarify under which circumstances a vesicle adsorbs to the SLB, and whether it, after lipid transfer and changed composition of the SLB and vesicle, desorbs back to the bulk again or not. With this model we can reproduce and provide a conceptual picture for the experimental findings.

Lipid transfer between charged supported lipid bilayers and oppositely charged vesicles

The bidirectional transfer of phospholipids between a charged, supported lipid bilayer (SLB) on SiO(2) and oppositely charged, unilamellar vesicles was studied by means of quartz crystal microbalance with dissipation (QCM-D) and optical reflectometry techniques. SLBs and vesicles were prepared from binary mixtures of 1-palmitoyl-2-oleoyl-sn-glycero-3-phosphocholine (POPC) mixed with different fractions of either 1-palmitoyl-2-oleoyl-sn-glycero-3-[phospho-l-serine] (POPS) (negatively charged) or 1-palmitoyl-2-oleoyl-sn-glycero-3-ethylphosphocholine (POEPC) (positively charged). The interaction process consists of an attachment-transfer-detachment (ATD) sequence, where added vesicles first attach to and interact with the SLB, after which they detach, leaving behind a compositionally modified SLB and ditto vesicles. When the process is complete, there is no net addition or reduction of total lipid mass in the SLB, but lipid exchange has occurred. The time scale of the process varies from a few to many tens of minutes depending on the type of charged lipid molecule and the relative concentration of charged lipids in the two membranes. Electrostatically symmetric cases, where only the charge sign (but not the fraction of charged lipid) was reversed between the SLB and the vesicles, produce qualitatively similar but quantitatively different kinetics. The time scale of the interaction varies significantly between the two cases, which is attributed to a combination of the differences in the molecular structure of the lipid headgroup for the positively and the negatively charged lipids used, and to nonsymmetric distribution of charged lipids in the lipid membranes. The maximum amounts of attached vesicles during the ATD process were estimated to be 25-40% of a full monolayer of vesicles, with the precise amount depending on the actual charge fractions in the vesicles and the SLB. Interrupted vesicle exposure experiments, and experiments where the bulk concentration of vesicles was varied, show that vesicles in some cases may be trapped irreversibly on the SLB, when only partial transfer of lipid molecules has occurred. Additional supply of vesicles and further transfer induces detachment, when a sufficient amount of oppositely charged lipids has been transferred to the SLB, so that the latter becomes repulsive to the attached vesicles. Possible mechanistic scenarios, including monomer insertion and hemifusion models, are discussed. The observed phenomena and the actual SLB preparation process form a platform both for studies of various intermembrane molecular transfer processes and for modifying the composition of SLBs in a controlled way, for example, for biosensor and cell culture applications.