4.7 Article

Dynamic clustering of lipids in hydrated two-component membranes: results of computer modeling and putative biological impact

期刊

出版社

TAYLOR & FRANCIS INC
DOI: 10.1080/07391102.2012.691365

关键词

cluster analysis; computer similations; hydrated lipid bilayer; lateral heterogeneity of lipids; molecular dynamics

资金

  1. Ministry of Education and Science of the Russian Federation
  2. Russian Foundation for Basic Research
  3. RAS Programe Basic fundamental research for nanotechnologies and nanomaterials

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Delineation and analysis of lateral clustering of lipids in model bilayers is an important step toward understanding of the physical processes underlying formation of lipid domains and rafts in cell membranes. Computer modeling methods represent a powerful tool to address the problem since they can detect clusters of only few lipid molecules this issue still resists easy characterization with modern experimental techniques. In this work, we propose a computational method to detect and analyze parts of membrane with different packing densities and hydrogen bonding patterns. A series of one- and two-component fluid systems containing lipids with the same polar heads and different acyl chains, dioleoylphosphatidylcholine (18:1) and dipalmitoylphosphatidylcholine (16:0), or with same acyl chains and different polar heads, dioleoylphosphatidylserine (18:1) and dioleoylphosphatidylcholine (18:1), were studied via molecular dynamics simulations. Four criteria of clustering were considered. It was shown that the waterlipid interface of biomembranes represents a highly dynamic and mosaic picture, whose parameters depend on the bilayer composition. Some systems (e.g. with 2030% of the anionic lipid) demonstrate unusual clustering properties and demand further investigation at molecular level. Lateral microheterogeneities in fluid lipid bilayers seem to be among the most important factors determining the nature of the membranewater interface in a cell.

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