4.6 Article

Double cushions preserve transmembrane protein mobility in supported bilayer systems

期刊

LANGMUIR
卷 24, 期 13, 页码 6820-6826

出版社

AMER CHEMICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1021/la800018d

关键词

-

资金

  1. NIGMS NIH HHS [5 F31 GM072434-03, R01 GM070622, F31 GM072434] Funding Source: Medline
  2. PHS HHS [R01-070622] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Supported lipid bilayers (SLBs) have been widely used as model systems to study cell membrane processes because they preserve the same 2D membrane fluidity found in living cells. One of the most significant limitations of this platform, however, is its inability to incorporate mobile transmembrane species. It is often postulated that transmembrane proteins reconstituted in SLBs lose their mobility because of direct interactions between the protein and the underlying substrate. Herein, we demonstrate a highly mobile fraction for a transmembrane protein, annexin V. Our strategy involves supporting the lipid bilayer on a double cushion, where we not only create a large space to accommodate the transmembrane portion of the macromolecule but also passivate the underlying substrate to reduce nonspecific protein-substrate interactions. The thickness of the confined water layer can be tuned by fusing vesicles containing polyethyleneglycol (PEG)-conjugated lipids of various molecular weights to a glass substrate that has first been passivated with a sacrificial layer of bovine serum albumin (BSA). The 2D fluidity of these systems was characterized by fluorescence recovery after photobleaching (FRAP) measurements. Uniform, mobile phospholipid bilayers with lipid diffusion coefficients of around 3 x 10(-8) cm(2)/s and percent mobile fractions of over 95% were obtained. Moreover, we obtained annexin V diffusion coefficients that were also around 3 x 10(-8) cm(2)/s with mobile fractions of up to 75%. This represents a significant improvement over bilayer platforms fabricated directly on glass or using single cushion strategies.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据