4.5 Article

Coexisting domains in the plasma membranes of live cells characterized by spin-label ESR spectroscopy

期刊

BIOPHYSICAL JOURNAL
卷 90, 期 12, 页码 4452-4465

出版社

CELL PRESS
DOI: 10.1529/biophysj.105.070839

关键词

-

资金

  1. NCRR NIH HHS [P41 RR016292, P41 RR016292-05, P41 RR016292-06, P41RR16292] Funding Source: Medline
  2. NIAID NIH HHS [AI18306, R01 AI018306] Funding Source: Medline
  3. NIBIB NIH HHS [EB03150, R01 EB003150] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The importance of membrane-based compartmentalization in eukaryotic cell function has become broadly appreciated, and a number of studies indicate that these eukaryotic cell membranes contain coexisting liquid-ordered ( L-o) and liquid-disordered ( L-d) lipid domains. However, the current evidence for such phase separation is indirect, and so far there has been no direct demonstration of differences in the ordering and dynamics for the lipids in these two types of regions or their relative amounts in the plasma membranes of live cells. In this study, we provide direct evidence for the presence of two different types of lipid populations in the plasma membranes of live cells from four different cell lines by electron spin resonance. Analysis of the electron spin resonance spectra recorded over a range of temperatures, from 5 to 37 degrees C, shows that the spinlabeled phospholipids incorporated experience two types of environments, L-o and L-d, with distinct order parameters and rotational diffusion coefficients but with some differences among the four cell lines. These results suggest that coexistence of lipid domains that differ significantly in their dynamic order in the plasma membrane is a general phenomenon. The L-o region is found to be a major component in contrast to a model in which small liquid-ordered lipid rafts exist in a 'sea' of disordered lipids. The results on ordering and dynamics for the live cells are also compared with those from model membranes exhibiting coexisting L-o and L-d phases.

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