4.7 Article

Electropermeabilization does not correlate with plasma membrane lipid oxidation

期刊

BIOELECTROCHEMISTRY
卷 132, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE SA
DOI: 10.1016/j.bioelechem.2019.107433

关键词

Electropermeabilization; C11-BODIPY; Oxidation; TIRF microscopy

资金

  1. National Science Center (Poland) [2017/27/N/NZ3/01110]
  2. AFOSR MURI [FA9550-15-1-0517]
  3. MSHE (Poland) in the Regional Initiative of Excellenceprogramme [016/RID/2018/19, 11 998 121.30 PLN]
  4. Polish-U.S. Fulbright Commission
  5. Frank Reidy Research Center for Bioelectrics

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The permeabilized condition of the cell membrane after electroporation can last minutes but the underlying mechanisms remain elusive. Previous studies suggest that lipid peroxidation could be responsible for the lasting leaky state of the membrane. The present study aims to link oxidation within the plasma membrane of live cells to permeabilization by electric pulses. We have introduced a method for the detection of oxidation by ratiometric fluorescence measurements of BODIPY-C11 dye using total internal reflection fluorescence (TIRF) microscopy, limiting the signal to the cell membrane. CHO-K1 cells were cultured on glass coverslips coated with an electroconductive indium tin oxide (ITO) layer, which enabled electroporation with micro- and submicrosecond pulses. No oxidation was observed with the electric field directed towards the ITO (cathode), even at field strengths much higher than that needed for permeabilization. Oxidation was readily detectable with the opposite polarity of pulses, but with the threshold higher than the permeabilization threshold. Moreover, a decrease in the medium conductance had opposite effects on permeabilization and lipid oxidation (it enhanced the former and suppressed the latter). We conclude that lipid oxidation can indeed occur at the plasma membrane after electric pulses, but it is not the cause of lasting membrane permeabilization. (C) 2019 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V.

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