4.5 Article

Comparative study of clinical pulmonary surfactants using atomic force microscopy

期刊

BIOCHIMICA ET BIOPHYSICA ACTA-BIOMEMBRANES
卷 1808, 期 7, 页码 1832-1842

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.bbamem.2011.03.006

关键词

Surfactant replacement therapy; Dipalmitoyl phosphatidylcholine; Cholesterol; Domain formation; Surface tension; Monolayer

资金

  1. University of Hawaii at Manoa
  2. Hawaii Community Foundation [44936]
  3. Peking University

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Clinical pulmonary surfactant is routinely used to treat premature newborns with respiratory distress syndrome, and has shown great potential in alleviating a number of neonatal and adult respiratory diseases. Despite extensive study of chemical composition, surface activity, and clinical performance of various surfactant preparations, a direct comparison of surfactant films is still lacking. In this study, we use atomic force microscopy to characterize and compare four animal-derived clinical surfactants currently used throughout the world, i.e., Survanta, Curosurf, Infasurf and BLES. These modified-natural surfactants are further compared to dipalmitoyl phosphatidylcholine (DPPC), a synthetic model surfactant of DPPC:palmitoyl-oleoyl phosphatidylglycerol (POPG) (7:3), and endogenous bovine natural surfactant. Atomic force microscopy reveals significant differences in the lateral structure and molecular organization of these surfactant preparations. These differences are discussed in terms of DPPC and cholesterol contents. We conclude that all animal-derived clinical surfactants assume a similar structure of multilayers of fluid phospholipids closely attached to an interfacial monolayer enriched in DPPC, at physiologically relevant surface pressures. This study provides the first comprehensive survey of the lateral structure of clinical surfactants at various surface pressures. It may have clinical implications on future application and development of surfactant preparations. (C) 2011 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

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