4.5 Article

Recurrent dynamics of rupture transitions of giant lipid vesicles at solid surfaces

期刊

BIOPHYSICAL JOURNAL
卷 120, 期 4, 页码 586-597

出版社

CELL PRESS
DOI: 10.1016/j.bpj.2021.01.006

关键词

-

资金

  1. National Science Foundation [DMR-1810540, 1S10RR024543-01]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

A study found distinct differences in the way single giant unilamellar vesicles (GUVs) rupture and the dynamics of their burst-resesl processes on hydrophobic and solid hydrophilic surfaces. The competition process in these rupture events determines the course of the topological transition under surface-energy-dependent adhesion.
Single giant unllamellar vesicles (GUVs) rupture spontaneously from their salt-laden suspension onto solid surfaces. At hydrophobic surfaces, the GUVs rupture via a recurrent, bouncing ball rhythm. During each contact, the GUVs, rendered tense by the substrate interactions, porate, and spread a molecularly transformed motif of a monomolecular layer on the hydrophobic surface from the point of contact in a symmetric manner. The competition from pore closure, however, limits the spreading and produces a daughter vesicle, which re-engages with the substrate. At solid hydrophilic surfaces, by contrast, GUVs rupture via a distinctly different recurrent burst-heal dynamics; during burst, single pores nucleate at the contact boundary of the adhering vesicles, facilitating asymmetric spreading and producing a heart-shaped membrane patch. During the healing phase, the competing pore closure produces a daughter vesicle. In both cases, the pattern of burst-reseal events repeats multiple times, splashing and spreading the vesicular fragments as bilayer patches at the solid surface in a pulsatory manner. These remarkable recurrent dynamics arise, not because of the elastic properties of the solid surface, but because the competition between membrane spreading and pore healing, prompted by the surface-energy-dependent adhesion, determine the course of the topological transition.

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

4.5
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