4.7 Article

Does Membrane Thickness Affect the Transport of Selective Ions Mediated by Ionophores in Synthetic Membranes?

期刊

MACROMOLECULAR RAPID COMMUNICATIONS
卷 36, 期 21, 页码 1929-1934

出版社

WILEY-V C H VERLAG GMBH
DOI: 10.1002/marc.201500289

关键词

ionomycin; membrane thickness; polymersomes; selective membrane permeability

资金

  1. Swiss National Science Foundation [200020_140302/1]
  2. National Center of Competence in Research Molecular Systems Engineering [51NF4O_141825]
  3. Swiss National Science Foundation (SNF) [200020_140302] Funding Source: Swiss National Science Foundation (SNF)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Biomimetic polymer nanocompartments (polymersomes) with preserved architecture and ion-selective membrane permeability represent cutting-edge mimics of cellular compartmentalization. Here it is studied whether the membrane thickness affects the functionality of ionophores in respect to the transport of Ca2+ ions in synthetic membranes of polymersomes, which are up to 2.6 times thicker than lipid membranes (5 nm). Selective permeability toward calcium ions is achieved by proper insertion of ionomycin, and demonstrated by using specific fluorescence markers encapsulated in their inner cavities. Preservation of polymersome architecture is shown by a combination of light scattering, transmission electron microscopy, and fluorescence spectroscopy. By using a combination of stopped-flow and fluorescence spectroscopy, it is shown that ionomycin can function and transport calcium ions across polymer membranes with thicknesses in the range 10.7-13.4 nm (7.1-8.9 times larger than the size of the ionophore). Thicker membranes induce a decrease in transport, but do not block it due to the intrinsic flexibility of these synthetic membranes. The design of ion selective biomimetic nanocompartments represents a new path toward the development of cellular ion nanosensors and nanoreactors, in which calcium sensitive biomacromolecules can be triggered for specific biological functions.

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

4.7
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