Proteins surface pressure

The primary site of action is postulated to be the Hpid matrix of cell membranes. The Hpid properties which are said to be altered vary from theory to theory and include enhancing membrane fluidity volume expansion melting of gel phases increasing membrane thickness, surface tension, and lateral surface pressure and encouraging the formation of polar dislocations (10,11). Most theories postulate that changes in the Hpids influence the activities of cmcial membrane proteins such as ion channels. The Hpid theories suffer from an important drawback at clinically used concentrations, the effects of inhalational anesthetics on Hpid bilayers are very small and essentially undetectable (6,12,13). 

FIG. 16 Fomation of a Langmuir lipid monolayer at the air/subphase interface and the subsequent crystallization of S-layer protein, (a) Amphiphilic lipid molecules are placed on the air/subphase interface between two barriers. Upon compression between the barriers, increase in surface pressure can be determined by a Wilhelmy plate system, (b) Depending on the final area, a liquid-expanded or liquid-condensed lipid monolayer is formed, (c) S-layer subunits injected in the subphase crystallized into a coherent S-layer lattice beneath the spread lipid monolayer and the adjacent air/subphase interface. 

FIG. 17 Schematic illustration of the setup for a tip-dip experiment. First glycerol dialkyl nonitol tetraether lipid (GDNT) monolayers are compressed to the desired surface pressure (measured by a Wilhehny plate system). Subsequently a small patch of the monolayer is clamped by a glass micropipette and the S-layer protein is recrystallized. The lower picture shows the S-layer/GDNT membrane on the tip of the glass micropipette in more detail. The basic circuit for measurement of the electric features of the membrane and the current mediated by a hypothetical ion carrier is shown in the upper part of the schematic drawing. 

We studied the surface pressure area isotherms of PS II core complex at different concentrations of NaCl in the subphase (Fig. 2). Addition of NaCl solution greatly enhanced the stability of monolayer of PS II core complex particles at the air-water interface. The n-A curves at subphases of 100 mM and 200 mM NaCl clearly demonstrated that PS II core complexes can be compressed to a relatively high surface pressure (40mN/m), before the monolayer collapses under our experimental conditions. Moreover, the average particle size calculated from tt-A curves using the total amount of protein complex is about 320 nm. This observation agrees well with the particle size directly observed using atomic force microscopy [8], and indicates that nearly all the protein complexes stay at the water surface and form a well-structured monolayer. 

We also noticed that the molecular area decreases gradually when the surface pressure is held at a certain value. Two possible explanations for this are (1) there may be some leakage of protein molecules from the surface into the subphase, since the protein is water soluble (2) protein denaturation may be taking place at the air-water interface. 

Our studies on the surface pressure-area isotherms of MGDG and the mixture of PS II core complex and MGDG indicate the presence of both PS II core complex and MGDG in the monolayer. MGDG molecules diluted the PS II core complex concentration in the monolayer. MGDG lipid functions as a support for the protein complex and the resulting mixture forms higher-quality films than PS II core complex alone. 

A stress that is describable by a single scalar can be identified with a hydrostatic pressure, and this can perhaps be envisioned as the isotropic effect of the (frozen) medium on the globular-like contour of an entrapped protein. Of course, transduction of the strain at the protein surface via the complex network of chemical bonds of the protein 3-D structure will result in a local strain at the metal site that is not isotropic at all. In terms of the spin Hamiltonian the local strain is just another field (or operator) to be added to our small collection of main players, B, S, and I (section 5.1). We assign it the symbol T, and we note that in three-dimensional space, contrast to B, S, and I, which are each three-component vectors. T is a symmetrical tensor with six independent elements ... 

To prepare an antibody protein array, a monolayer of protein A, which was compressed at a surface pressure of 11 mN m l was transferred to a compartment containing anti-ferritin antibody in 10 mM pH 7.0 phosphate buffer. The antibody molecules were self assembled onto the protein A layer. The protein A/antibody molecular membrane was transfered to a compartment containing ultrapure water for rinsing, and was then transfered onto the surface of an HOPG plate by the horizontal method. AFM measurements were made in a pH 7.0 of 10 mM phosphate buffer solution. 

Interactions between proteins and salts in the binding buffer are also a major determinant of selectivity. Salts that are strong retention promoters in HIC are excluded from protein surfaces by repulsion from their hydrophobic amide backbones and hydrophobic amino acid residues.8,9 This causes the mobile phase to exert an exclusionary pressure that favors the association of proteins with the column, regardless of stationary-phase hydrophobicity.1(W2 Because this mechanism involves the entire protein surface, the degree of exclusion is proportional to average protein hydrophobicity, regardless of the distribution of hydrophobic sites. 

The effect of protein and other monolayers on mass-transfer rates depends quantitatively 50) on the surface compressional modulus, Cr this is defined as the reciprocal of the compressibility of the contaminating surface film, i.e., Cr = —A dU/dA. For films at the oil-water interface Cr is often close to II, the surface pressure, which is equal to the lowering of the interfacial tension by the film. 

Most of the above membrane-oriented studies were carried out for peptides in multilayer systems that were collapsed or transferred onto a sample cell surface. An alternative and very interesting way to study membrane systems is by IRRAS (infrared reflection absorption spectroscopy) at the air-water interface. In this way, unilamellar systems can be studied as a function of surface pressure and under the influence of various membrane proteins and peptides added. Mendelsohn et al.[136] have studied a model series of peptides, [K2(LA) ] (n = 6, 8, 10, 12), in nonaqueous (solution), multilamellar (lipid), and unilamellar (peptide-IRRAS) conditions. In the multilamellar vesicles these peptides are predominantly helical in conformation, but as peptide only monolayers on a D20 subphase the conformation is (1-sheet like, at least initially. For different lengths, the peptides show variable surface pressure sensitivity to development of some helical component. These authors further use their IR data to hypothesize the existence of the less-usual parallel (i-sheet conformation in these peptides. A critical comparison is available for different secondary structures as detected using the IRRAS data for peptides on H20 and D20 subphasesJ137 ... 

Go and n being the interfacial tension between oil and water, and the surface pressure due to the adsorption of proteins and emulsifier, respectively. Combining equations 1-4, we obtain. 

In line with the Gibbs adsorption equation (equation 3.33 in chapter 3), the presence of thermodynamically unfavourable interactions causes an increase in protein surface activity at the planar oil-water interface (or air-water interface). As illustrated in Figure 7.5 for the case of legumin adsorption at the n-decane-water interface (Antipova et al., 1997), there is observed to be an increase in the rate of protein adsorption, and also in the value of the steady-state interfacial pressure n. (For the definition of this latter quantity, the reader is referred to the footnote on p. 96.)... 

Figure 7.15 Effect of thermodynamically favourable interactions between biopolymers on protein surface activity at the planar oil-water or air-water interface. The surface pressure n reached after 6 hours is plotted against the polysaccharide concentration ( ), legumin (0.001 wt%) + dextran (Mw = 270 kDa) at / -decane-water surface at pH = 7.8 and ionic strength = 0.01 M, (Ay = -0.2 x 105 cm3 mol1) (Pavlovskaya et ah, 1993) ( ), legumin (0.001 wt%) + maltodextrin (MD6, Mw = 102 kDa) at air-water surface at pH = 7.2 and ionic strength = 0.05 M (Ay = - 0.02 x 105 cm3 mol-1) (Belyakova et ah, 1999) (A), legumin (0.001 wt%) + maltodextrin (MD10, Mw = 45 kDa) at air-water surface at pH = 7.2 and ionic strength = 0.05 M (.1 / = - 0.08 x 105 cm3 mol-1) (Belyakova et ah, 1999).

Based on experimental evidence from AFM, the physical mechanism of orogenic5 displacement was proposed (Mackie et al., 1999b, 2000, 2003). A crucial aspect of the mechanism is that the surfactant domains exert a lateral surface pressure which compresses the protein layer. The AFM data obtained by Mackie and co-workers (1999b) provided direct visual evidence, for the first time, of a gel-like protein network at the air-water interface, as well as a structural explanation of protein displacement by small-molecule surfactant. In essence, the process of orogenic5 displacement is assumed to involve three stages ... 

Finally, at a sufficiently high surface pressure, the protein network breaks down completely, thereby allowing outright desorption of the protein in the form of aggregates. 

Figure. 8.8 Comparison of high resolution AFM images of Langmuir-Blodgett films obtained from the air-water interface for three protein + Tween 20 systems (A) p-casein, 0.6 x 0.6 pm, surface pressure % = 20.6 mN/m (B) p-lactoglobulin, 0.8 x 0.8 pm, % = 26.1 mN/m (C) a-lact-albumin, 0.7 x 0.7 pm, % = 28.4 mN/m. Reproduced from Mackie et al (1999b) with permission.

The experimental procedure consisted first of generating a detergent-protein complex monolayer of fixed area at the air-water interface, followed by varying the substrate pH. The experimental parameters were film surface pressure and the subphase pH. 

If it is assumed that the magnitude of the change in complex film surface pressure reflects the extent of protein-detergent interaction, it is possible to identify and characterize the binding groups. 

A model that is consistent with these observations of the action of trypsin and phospholipase A and with the discontinuities in the All-composition curves (Figures 2 and 3) is one in which the lipid monolayer is not a continuous palisade of uniformly oriented lipid molecules but rather an assembly of surface micelles. In this model, proposed by Colacicco (4, 5), the protein first comes into contact with the lipid molecules at the periphery of the surface micelles and then inserts itself as a unit between them. This is the basis for the generalized nonspecific interaction between lipids and proteins which results in increase of surface pressure. One may thus explain the identical All values obtained with films of lecithin and 80 mole % lactoside by picturing the lecithin molecules outside and the lactoside molecules inside the surface micelles. In this model lecithin prevents the bound lactoside from interacting nonspecifically with globulin and produces the same increase in pressure as with a film of pure lecithin. In the mixed micelle the lactose moiety of the lactoside protrudes into the aqueous subphase. Contact of the protein with these or other nonperipheral regions of the surface micelle would not increase the surface pressure. 

---