Itay Budin1, Anik Debnath, Jack W Szostak. 1. Howard Hughes Medical Institute , Department of Molecular Biology and Center for Computational and Integrative Biology, Massachusetts General Hospital, 185 Cambridge Street, Boston, Massachusetts 02114, USA.
Abstract
The first protocell membranes may have assembled from fatty acids and related single-chain lipids available in the prebiotic environment. Prior to the evolution of complex cellular machinery, spontaneous protocell membrane growth and division had to result from the intrinsic physicochemical properties of these molecules, in the context of specific environmental conditions. Depending on the nature of the chemical and physical environment, fatty acids can partition between several different phases, including soluble monomers, micelles, and lamellar vesicles. Here we address the concentration dependence of fatty acid aggregation, which is dominated by entropic considerations. We quantitatively distinguish between fatty acid phases using a combination of physical and spectroscopic techniques, including the use of the fluorescent fatty acid analogue Laurdan, whose emission spectrum is sensitive to structural differences between micellar and lamellar aggregates. We find that the monomer-aggregate transition largely follows a characteristic pseudophase model of molecular aggregation but that the composition of the aggregate phase is also concentration dependent. At low amphiphile concentrations above the critical aggregate concentration, vesicles coexist with a significant proportion of micelles, while more concentrated solutions favor the lamellar vesicle phase. We subsequently show that the micelle-vesicle equilibrium can be used to drive the growth of pre-existing vesicles upon an increase in amphiphile concentration either through solvent evaporation or following the addition of excess lipids. We propose a simple model for a primitive environmentally driven cell cycle, in which protocell membrane growth results from evaporative concentration, followed by shear force or photochemically induced division.
The first protocell membranes may have assembled from fatty acids and related single-chain lipids available in the prebiotic environment. Prior to the evolution of complex cellular machinery, spontaneous protocell membrane growth and division had to result from the intrinsic physicochemical properties of these molecules, in the context of specific environmental conditions. Depending on the nature of the chemical and physical environment, fatty acids can partition between several different phases, including soluble monomers, micelles, and lamellar vesicles. Here we address the concentration dependence of fatty acid aggregation, which is dominated by entropic considerations. We quantitatively distinguish between fatty acid phases using a combination of physical and spectroscopic techniques, including the use of the fluorescent fatty acid analogue Laurdan, whose emission spectrum is sensitive to structural differences between micellar and lamellar aggregates. We find that the monomer-aggregate transition largely follows a characteristic pseudophase model of molecular aggregation but that the composition of the aggregate phase is also concentration dependent. At low amphiphile concentrations above the critical aggregate concentration, vesicles coexist with a significant proportion of micelles, while more concentrated solutions favor the lamellar vesicle phase. We subsequently show that the micelle-vesicle equilibrium can be used to drive the growth of pre-existing vesicles upon an increase in amphiphile concentration either through solvent evaporation or following the addition of excess lipids. We propose a simple model for a primitive environmentally driven cell cycle, in which protocell membrane growth results from evaporative concentration, followed by shear force or photochemically induced division.
Early cell membranes are thought to have
been composed of fatty
acids and related single-chain amphiphiles, in contrast to the phospholipid-based
membranes of all modern cells. Initial support for this hypothesis
arose from the facile prebiotic synthesis of these molecules and the
ability of fatty acids to spontaneously assemble into bilayer vesicles.[1,2] Fatty acids and other oxygenated alkanes can be synthesized via
Fischer–Tropsch-type chemistry,[3,4] and membrane-forming
samples of these molecules have been discovered in abiotic environments
such as meteorites.[5,6] More recently, the functional
properties of fatty acid membranes have been studied[7−10] and are consistent with the necessity for early cell membranes,
prior to the evolution of transport machinery, to be permeable to
polar nutrients. In addition, fatty acid vesicles have a striking
ability to undergo intervesicle competition through exchange of monomers.[11,12] These dynamic processes depend upon the rapid exchange of single-chain
amphiphiles between membranes and the surrounding solution. The importance
of these exchange processes motivated us to investigate the structural
composition of fatty acid vesicle solutions.Fatty acid membranes
are only stable within a narrow pH range,
from neutral to moderately alkaline (pH ∼ 7–9, depending
on chain length), near the apparent pKa of the fatty acid within the bilayer. This condition allows approximately
equal proportions of protonated and ionizedcarboxylates to coexist,
forming a bilayer-stabilizing hydrogen bonding network.[13,14] Under more alkaline conditions, fatty acids are fully ionized and
aggregate into small soap micelles, as a result of the charge repulsion
of the anionic head groups. Under acidic conditions, fatty acids become
fully protonated, lose their amphiphilicity, and condense into oil
droplets. This pH dependence of fatty acid phase behavior has been
extensively characterized by NMR, X-ray diffraction, and electron
spin resonance (ESR).[13,15,16] Subsequent work has utilized the pH dependence of fatty acid aggregation
to drive the de novo assembly of vesicles from micelles[7,17] or the growth of pre-existing vesicles by introducing alkaline micelles
into buffered suspensions of vesicles.[7,18]Supra-molecular
self-assembly is intrinsically concentration dependent
because of the entropic cost of aggregation. Detergent solutions,
for example, feature a critical micelle concentration (cmc), below
which only monomers are found and above which aggregation occurs.
Such self-assembly processes can be described as pseudophase equilibria,
with critical concentrations being analogous to solubilities. Critical
aggregation concentrations (cac) have been observed for fatty acid
vesicles,[2,19] suggesting that monomers coexist with vesicles
above the cac. In addition, asymmetries in ESR data have provided
evidence for micelle–vesicle coexistence in two fatty acid
systems.[15,16] Because of their large size (n > 105), membrane vesicles have a higher entropic cost
of formation than smaller (n ∼ 50) micellar
aggregates. We therefore asked if monomers, micelles, and vesicles
could all coexist under certain conditions and whether the composition
of the aggregate phase could be concentration dependent, with lower
concentration solutions favoring micelles and higher concentrations
favoring vesicles. These questions are of particular interest with
regard to prebiotic scenarios, where membrane assembly may have frequently
occurred in relatively dilute solutions of fatty acids, near the cac.[20]To explore multiphase coexistence, we
sought methods to quantitatively
characterize the equilibrium between fatty acid monomers, micelles,
and vesicles at low concentrations. We focused on a set of monounsaturated
fatty acids, which serve as convenient laboratory models for the short-chain,
saturated lipids expected to result from prebiotic synthesis. Because
of the techniques used, previous studies could only examine fatty
acid aggregation behavior at concentrations an order of magnitude
or more above the apparent cac. We distinguished between different
aggregate phases using the fluorescent fatty acid analogue Laurdan
(6-dodecanoyl-2-dimethylaminonaphthalene), which undergoes an emission
red shift with increasing solvent polarity.[21] Laurdan has been used extensively to study structural features of
membranes, e.g., lipid packing,[22] membrane
bending,[23] and phase segregation.[24] Since micelles feature greater headgroup solvation
than more tightly packed bilayers, we predicted that Laurdan would
be a sensitive means of distinguishing these two aggregate states.
We used this assay alongside surface tension measurements, which can
quantify monomer concentrations, to characterize the equilibrium between
these states. Our data support a micelle–vesicle equilibrium
above the cac in which dilute solutions are relatively enriched in
micelles. We then used this multiphase coexistence to drive the growth
of fatty acid vesicles by evaporative concentration, a process with
potential prebiotic relevance to the growth of early cell membranes.
Results and Discussion
We first characterized the fatty
acid monomer to micelle phase
transition by measuring solution surface tension at pH 10.5, in which
fatty acids aggregate into soap micelles. Increasing concentrations
of surfactant (e.g., fatty acid) monomer reduce the effective surface
tension of an interface (e.g., air–water), but aggregates (e.g.,
micelles) do not. We measured surface tensions of serial dilutions
for a series of unsaturated fatty acids ranging from 14 to 18 carbons.
From these surface tension plots (Figure S1, Supporting
Information), we calculated solution monomer concentrations
by fitting to the Szyszkowski equation, which relates surface tension
to bulk concentration (Materials and Methods for details). Pseudophase equilibria feature abrupt transition points
at the critical concentration, above which the monomer concentration
stays constant and all additional lipids are incorporated into aggregates.[25] As expected, this was the case for a series
of unsaturated fatty acids at high pH, where micelles are the only
aggregates that can form (Figure 1A). The critical
micelle concentrations (cmc’s) of these fatty acids scaled
exponentially with chain length, a result of the linear dependence
of the free energy of solvation on chain length via the hydrophobic
effect.[26]
Figure 1
Fatty acid monomer concentrations as a
function of total concentration
for a series of monounsaturated fatty acids at pH 10.5 (A) and 8.5
(B). Monomer concentrations were derived from surface tension plots
since aggregates are not surface active. The plateau points in (A)
correspond to critical micelle concentrations (MA, 15 mM; PA, 4 mM;
OA, 1 mM, in agreement with previous measurements[27]). Plateau points in (B) indicate critical aggregation concentrations
(MA, 2 mM; PA, 0.2 mM; OA, <0.1 mM). MA, myristoleate (C14:1);
PA, palmitoleate (C16:1); OA, oleate (C18:1).
Fatty acid monomer concentrations as a
function of total concentration
for a series of monounsaturated fatty acids at pH 10.5 (A) and 8.5
(B). Monomer concentrations were derived from surface tension plots
since aggregates are not surface active. The plateau points in (A)
correspond to critical micelle concentrations (MA, 15 mM; PA, 4 mM;
OA, 1 mM, in agreement with previous measurements[27]). Plateau points in (B) indicate critical aggregation concentrations
(MA, 2 mM; PA, 0.2 mM; OA, <0.1 mM). MA, myristoleate (C14:1);
PA, palmitoleate (C16:1); OA, oleate (C18:1).We then repeated the above experiments at pH 8.5,
where vesicles
are expected to form. Monomer concentrations in fatty acid solutions
at this lower pH (Figure 1B) also plateaued
at critical concentrations, but not as abruptly as at pH 10.5. This
was somewhat surprising because vesicles contain very large numbers
of monomers, and vesicle formation should therefore more closely resemble
a pure phase transition. We reasoned that this effect could be due
to fatty acids aggregating into multiples states, e.g., vesicles and
micelles, above the critical concentration. We also considered the
alternative possibility that micelle aggregation occurred at a lower
concentration than vesicle assembly at pH 8.5; i.e., the system had
two critical concentrations, as has been observed in cationic/anionic
surfactant mixtures.[28] However, when we
used light scattering, which detects vesicle assembly but not the
formation of much smaller micelles, the cac’s we observed (Figure
S2, Supporting Information) were at the
same concentration as, or even slightly lower than, the critical concentrations
obtained from surface tension plots. We therefore conclude that monomers
do not aggregate into micelles at concentrations below that at which
vesicle assembly occurs.These initial experiments motivated
us to find experimental techniques
that would allow us to detect and measure both micellar and lamellar
aggregates in the same experiment. This is a challenge because of
the large size difference between micelles and vesicles (precluding
microscopy or light scattering), the rapid exchange between these
states (precluding any sort of physical separation), and their similar
internal chemical environments (precluding dyes sensitive to nonpolar
environments). Laurdan is a C12 fatty acid analogue with a fluorescent
naphthalene derivative that features an emission spectrum that is
sensitive to the polarity of its environment. Previous work in our
laboratory had used Laurdan to monitor structural changes during fatty
acid membrane bending,[23] and so we reasoned
that it would also be sensitive to larger changes in aggregate structure
(Figure S3, Supporting Information).We observed a characteristic change in Laurdan emission intensities
when incubated as a minor component (1:400) in fatty acid micelles
as compared to vesicles (Figure 2A). This is
explained by the high curvature of the micelle surface, which results
in increased waterpenetration compared to bilayers. We quantified
this spectral shift using a unitless Generalized Polarization[24] (GP) parameterwhere I430 and I500 are the emission intensities (excitation
364 nm) at 430 and 500 nm, respectively. We note that our expression
for GP is inverted in sign from that generally used (for phospholipid
membranes) due to the altered spectra of Laurdan in fatty acid aggregates.
In this form, larger GP values indicate a more solvated state of the
dye, e.g., as expected from micellar vs lamellar packing.
Figure 2
Aggregate dependence
of Laurdan emission. (A) Emission spectrum
for 25 μM Laurdan (excitation 364 nm) in 10 mM oleate at pH
8.5 (vesicles) or pH 10.5 (micelles). Asterisks indicate peaks whose
emission intensities are used to calculate GP. (B) Dependence of Laurdan
GP on pH in 10 mM oleate with (open squares) or without (closed circles)
1% v/v Triton X100, which disrupts fatty acid aggregates. Error bars
indicate SD (n = 3).
Aggregate dependence
of Laurdan emission. (A) Emission spectrum
for 25 μM Laurdan (excitation 364 nm) in 10 mM oleate at pH
8.5 (vesicles) or pH 10.5 (micelles). Asterisks indicate peaks whose
emission intensities are used to calculate GP. (B) Dependence of Laurdan
GP on pH in 10 mM oleate with (open squares) or without (closed circles)
1% v/v Triton X100, which disrupts fatty acid aggregates. Error bars
indicate SD (n = 3).In oleate solutions, GP increased monotonically
with pH until it
plateaued above pH 10 (Figure 2B). This was
consistent with a pH-dependent change from a lamellar to micellar
phase, with intermediate values (e.g., at pH 9) reflecting coexisting
vesicles and micelles.[19] These pH-dependent
changes in GP were not observed in the presence of detergent (Triton
X100), which disrupts all fatty acid aggregates. Changes in Laurdan
GP thus were not caused by the pH change per se but rather by the
structure of the resulting fatty acid aggregate. GP was also notably
insensitive to vesicle radius and thus mean curvature, in extruded
samples (Figure S4, Supporting Information). This was consistent with our previous results on bending relaxation
in fatty acid vesicles.[23]We then
asked if the Laurdan GP is dependent on the concentration
of the fatty acid solution. At concentrations below the aggregation
concentrations, Laurdan emission intensity and GP were low, likely
reflecting the insolubility of the dye in the absence of hydrophobic
aggregates (Figure S5, Supporting Information). For solutions at pH 10.5, GP remained constant with regard to
concentration above the cmc for all three fatty acids tested (Figure 3A). Therefore, the micelle aggregate is structurally
consistent over this concentration range, though it is likely heterogeneous
in nature. In contrast, solutions at pH 8.5 showed a dramatic dependence
of GP on concentration (Figure 3B). Concentrations
just above the cac had a GP close to that for micelles, which decreased
as the concentration increased, eventually plateauing at high concentrations.
We interpreted this data to indicate a concentration dependence of
the fatty acid aggregation state, with micelles favored in low concentration
solutions. We also observed this effect in oleate solutions at pH
9.2, with GP plateauing to an intermediate value reflecting a roughly
equal mixture of micelles and vesicles (Figure 3C).
Figure 3
Concentration dependence of Laurdan GP in fatty acid solutions
at varying pH. (A) GP as a function of concentration for monounsaturated
fatty acids at pH 10.5. GP is constant for concentrations above the
cmc. (B) GP as a function of concentration for monounsaturated fatty
acids at pH 8.5. GP drops monotonically once above the cac, reflecting
a change in the aggregate composition. (C) GP as a function of concentration
in oleate at pH 9.2. Dotted lines representing equivalent curves for
pH 10.5 (from A) and 8.5 (from B) are provided for reference. Error
bars indicate SD (n = 3).
Concentration dependence of Laurdan GP in fatty acid solutions
at varying pH. (A) GP as a function of concentration for monounsaturated
fatty acids at pH 10.5. GP is constant for concentrations above the
cmc. (B) GP as a function of concentration for monounsaturated fatty
acids at pH 8.5. GP drops monotonically once above the cac, reflecting
a change in the aggregate composition. (C) GP as a function of concentration
in oleate at pH 9.2. Dotted lines representing equivalent curves for
pH 10.5 (from A) and 8.5 (from B) are provided for reference. Error
bars indicate SD (n = 3).Assuming that Laurdan partitions representatively
between micelles
and vesicles, its emission in a solution can be modeled as a weighted
average between its characteristic micelle and vesicle emissions (Materials and Methods). Using this approach, we
approximated the micelle to vesicle partition coefficient as a function
of concentration in the systems tested (Figure 4). These are relative partition coefficients with respect to the
reference vesicle solutions at 30 or 50 mM and are thus expressed
as “apparent Xm/Xv”, where Xm and Xv are the micelle and vesicle fractions, respectively.
Figure 4
Apparent
micelle to vesicle partition coefficients derived from
Laurdan GP data. Partition coefficients are calculated by equating
measured emission intensities to weighted averages between reference
vesicle and micelle solutions. Partition coefficients are given as
a function of concentration in vesicle solutions at pH 8.5 or 9.2
and show that low concentration solutions are enriched in micellar
aggregates.
Apparent
micelle to vesicle partition coefficients derived from
Laurdan GP data. Partition coefficients are calculated by equating
measured emission intensities to weighted averages between reference
vesicle and micelle solutions. Partition coefficients are given as
a function of concentration in vesicle solutions at pH 8.5 or 9.2
and show that low concentration solutions are enriched in micellar
aggregates.We tested the concentration dependence of the micelle
to vesicle
ratio independently by measuring the turbidity of vesicle solutions
that had been extruded to 50 nm to eliminate spurious effects due
to variation in vesicle size. Phospholipid (dimyristoleoyl phosphocholine)
solutions, which only form vesicles, exhibited a linear increase in
turbidity with concentration, corresponding to the expected linear
increase in vesicle concentration (Figure 5A, black). In contrast, the absorbance of myristoleate solutions
increased nonlinearly above the cac, with more dilute solutions depleted
in vesicles (Figure 5A, green). From these
absorbance values, we calculated apparent micelle to vesicle partition
coefficients, assuming that all fatty acids not in vesicles were in
the form of micelles (Materials and Methods). These values corresponded well with the partition coefficients
derived from Laurdan measurements (Figure 5B).
Figure 5
Vesicle concentration vs myristoleate concentration. (A) Turbidity
of myristoleate solutions at pH 8.5 extruded to 50 nm (green, left
axis). Dashed line is the expected absorbance if the vesicle concentration
scaled linearly with myristoleate concentration, relative to the absorbance
at 50 mM. In contrast, the turbidity of 50 nm phospholipid (dimyristoleoyl
phosphocholine, PC) vesicles scales linearly with concentration (black,
right axis). Myristoleate concentrations are total solution concentrations
above the myristoleate cac, 2 mM. (B) Apparent micelle to vesicle
partition coefficients for myristoleate at pH 8.5 as derived from
absorbance readings (green circles) and from Laurdan GP (blue squares).
A fitted single exponential decay (k = 0.12 mM–1) is shown and used to predict growth in Figure 8.
Vesicle concentration vs myristoleate concentration. (A) Turbidity
of myristoleate solutions at pH 8.5 extruded to 50 nm (green, left
axis). Dashed line is the expected absorbance if the vesicle concentration
scaled linearly with myristoleate concentration, relative to the absorbance
at 50 mM. In contrast, the turbidity of 50 nm phospholipid (dimyristoleoyl
phosphocholine, PC) vesicles scales linearly with concentration (black,
right axis). Myristoleate concentrations are total solution concentrations
above the myristoleate cac, 2 mM. (B) Apparent micelle to vesicle
partition coefficients for myristoleate at pH 8.5 as derived from
absorbance readings (green circles) and from Laurdan GP (blue squares).
A fitted single exponential decay (k = 0.12 mM–1) is shown and used to predict growth in Figure 8.
Figure 8
Solution evaporation drives the growth of fatty acid vesicles.
Myristoleate (MA) vesicles, initially at 5 mM lipid concentration,
were concentrated by gentle evaporation (Materials
and Methods) and changes in surface area monitored by FRET
at time points of 3, 10, and 24 h. Data are shown for two independent
experiments (solid circles, squares) and are in agreement with that
predicted from measured apparent micelle–vesicle partition
coefficients (dashed line). An identical experiment with dimyristoleoyl
phosphocholine (PC) vesicles did not show growth (points labeled x).
Our characterization of fatty acid phase behavior
demonstrates
that fatty acid incorporation into vesicles vs micelles increases
with both increasing concentration and decreasing pH. The addition
of alkaline micelles to buffered vesicles has long been used as a
model system for vesicle growth.[20] We therefore
hypothesized that the concentration dependence of the micelle–vesicle
equilibrium could provide an alternative mechanism for the growth
of pre-existing fatty acid vesicles. In this scenario, a rise in amphiphile
concentration would cause the incorporation of excess micellar fatty
acids into vesicles, and dilution would drive vesicle shrinkage (as
material leaves the lamellar phase and reforms micelles). We tested
this possibility by monitoring changes in the membrane area of 100
nm vesicles using a Förster resonance energy transfer (FRET)
growth assay.[7,18] This assay quantitatively relates
changes in FRET to changes in dye concentrations and therefore membrane
surface area (Materials and Methods). Upon
dilution from 10 to 5 mM, we observed rapid shrinkage of 100 nm myristoleate
vesicles (Figure 6). Dilution was performed
with buffer containing 2 mM myristoleate, at the cac, so shrinkage
was not due to general aggregate dissolution. This shrinkage was subsequently
reversed by the addition of preformed 20 mM myristoleate vesicles,
to raise the total myristoleate concentration back to 10 mM. We were
thus able to demonstrate a full cycle of growth and shrinkage by modulating
the fatty acid concentration in the solution.
Figure 6
Reversible vesicle growth
driven by amphiphile concentration changes.
Myristoleate vesicles, initially at 10 mM, shrink in surface area
upon dilution to 5 mM. Surface area grows back to near the initial
value upon concentration via the addition of preformed vesicles and
subsequently shrinks upon further dilution. Changes in membrane area
are tracked by FRET between donor and acceptor phospholipids, which
remain in the vesicles due to their insolubility.
Reversible vesicle growth
driven by amphiphile concentration changes.
Myristoleate vesicles, initially at 10 mM, shrink in surface area
upon dilution to 5 mM. Surface area grows back to near the initial
value upon concentration via the addition of preformed vesicles and
subsequently shrinks upon further dilution. Changes in membrane area
are tracked by FRET between donor and acceptor phospholipids, which
remain in the vesicles due to their insolubility.The rapid growth of large, multilamellar vesicles
following the
addition of excess micelles results in the transformation of initially
spherical vesicles into extended filamentous vesicles.[10,12] This pathway provides a straightforward route for protocell division
due to the intrinsic fragility of filamentous vesicles, which break
up into daughter vesicles in response to mild shear forces[10] or photochemically induced pearling.[29] We therefore asked whether concentration-driven
vesicle growth is robust enough to drive the same filamentous shape
transition. To test this possibility, we prepared large (∼4
um) myristoleate vesicles by large pore extrusion and dialysis at
a concentration of 5 mM. The initially spherical vesicles were brought
to a concentration of 15 mM via the addition of preformed myristoleate
vesicles and within 30 min had grown into long, thin filamentous vesicles
(Figure 7). The shape transition occurs because
volume growth is osmotically limited by solute (buffer) permeation,
geometrically necessitating high surface area morphologies. Vesicles
were labeled with a soluble fluorescent dye, which stayed encapsulated
during the entire experiment.
Figure 7
Growth of large vesicles by increase in amphiphile
concentration.
Multilamellar (∼4 μm) myristoleate vesicles, initially
mostly spherical (top), grow into long, filamentous vesicles upon
addition of concentrated preformed vesicles (bottom). Filamentous
growth occurs because of the osmotically limited increase in vesicle
volume and is similar to growth seen upon addition of alkaline micelles.
Top image taken immediately after mixing, bottom taken 20 min later.
Scale bar, 30 μm.
Growth of large vesicles by increase in amphiphile
concentration.
Multilamellar (∼4 μm) myristoleate vesicles, initially
mostly spherical (top), grow into long, filamentous vesicles upon
addition of concentrated preformed vesicles (bottom). Filamentous
growth occurs because of the osmotically limited increase in vesicle
volume and is similar to growth seen upon addition of alkaline micelles.
Top image taken immediately after mixing, bottom taken 20 min later.
Scale bar, 30 μm.The simplest prebiotic mechanism for increasing
lipid concentration
would be through solution evaporation. We therefore asked whether
gentle evaporation would drive the growth of fatty acid vesicles as
a result of the transfer of material from coexisting micelles into
the preformed vesicles as the fatty acid concentration increased (Figure 8). Solutions of 100 nm
myristoleate vesicles, initially at a concentration of 5 mM, were
allowed to evaporate at 35 °C with gentle agitation. Membrane
area was monitored by FRET at discrete time points and approximately
doubled over 24 h as the lipid concentration rose to ∼10 mM.
This growth was similar in magnitude to that predicted (dashed line)
from the previously measured apparent micelle–vesicle partition
coefficients (Figure 5B; Materials
and Methods) and thus was consistent with our model for concentration-driven
growth. Growth was not observed for phospholipid vesicles, which do
not feature a measurable coexisting solution phase of micelles or
monomers and thus were not predicted to change in membrane area upon
concentration.Solution evaporation drives the growth of fatty acid vesicles.
Myristoleate (MA) vesicles, initially at 5 mM lipid concentration,
were concentrated by gentle evaporation (Materials
and Methods) and changes in surface area monitored by FRET
at time points of 3, 10, and 24 h. Data are shown for two independent
experiments (solid circles, squares) and are in agreement with that
predicted from measured apparent micelle–vesicle partition
coefficients (dashed line). An identical experiment with dimyristoleoyl
phosphocholine (PC) vesicles did not show growth (points labeled x).
Conclusions
We have used a combination of physical
and spectroscopic assays
to characterize the phase behavior of fatty acid solutions to better
understand models for prebiotic membrane assembly and function. In
the course of these experiments, we found Laurdan to be a particularly
useful fluorescent probe due to its ability to differentiate between
fatty acid micelles and vesicles. This assay was complementary to
standard approaches for measuring fatty acid monomer concentration
(via surface tension) and vesicle concentration (via light scattering).
At a given temperature and pressure, there are two determinants of
fatty acid phase behavior in our system: pH, which controls headgroup
ionization, and concentration, which entropically regulates aggregate
size. Laurdan GP increases monotonically from pH 8.5 to pH 10, which
reflects the previously identified transition from vesicle to micelle
aggregates as the fatty acids become fully ionized and thus favor
a high curvature geometry. More surprisingly, we also found that GP
at pH 8.5 decreases with concentration above the cac. We interpret
this to reflect a concentration-dependent change in the micelle–vesicle
equilibrium, with lower concentrations favoring the smaller micellar
aggregates and higher concentrations favoring the much larger vesicle
aggregates. This behavior is independent of the concentration-dependent
transition from monomers to aggregates (vesicles or micelles), which
largely follows a pseudophase equilibrium that is characteristic of
surfactant aggregation. Our model for fatty acid aggregation is shown
in Figure 9.
Figure 9
Model for fatty acid phase behavior. Solutions
feature a pseudophase
separation from monomers to aggregates, characterized by a cac (dashed
line) that is dependent on pH. In addition, vesicle solutions feature
a concentration-dependent vesicle–micelle equilibrium, with
higher concentrations favoring the larger vesicle aggregates. In contrast,
alkaline solutions exhibit a single sharp pseudophase transition at
the cmc. Both pH and concentration-driven phase transitions can drive
fatty acid vesicle growth.
Model for fatty acid phase behavior. Solutions
feature a pseudophase
separation from monomers to aggregates, characterized by a cac (dashed
line) that is dependent on pH. In addition, vesicle solutions feature
a concentration-dependent vesicle–micelle equilibrium, with
higher concentrations favoring the larger vesicle aggregates. In contrast,
alkaline solutions exhibit a single sharp pseudophase transition at
the cmc. Both pH and concentration-driven phase transitions can drive
fatty acid vesicle growth.The predominance of micelles at lower concentrations
can be rationalized
entropically since micelles are much smaller than vesicles. The greater
magnitude of this effect with shorter chain length lipids (e.g., myristoleate
vs oleate) supports this hypothesis: micelle aggregation number has
a strong dependence on chain length, so shorter chain length lipids
assemble into smaller micelles.[30] We therefore
expect this phenomenon to be broadly applicable to shorter, saturated
single-chain lipids, which are the primary product of abiotic lipid
synthesis.[3,4] While the high working concentrations of
such species precluded the quantitative fluorescence-based analysis
introduced here, previous ESR experiments have shown similar micelle–vesicle
coexistence in a decanoic acid (C10) system.[15]On the basis of the results described above, we present a
potential
scenario in which environmental fluctuations could drive repeated
cycles of protocell growth and division. We begin by considering a
small warm pond, containing dilute fatty acids and perhaps other single-chain
amphiphiles, along with other organic compounds. We assume that fatty
acids were present at a concentration sufficient to lead to the assembly
of micelles and vesicles. Evaporation, driven by solar or geothermal
heat and wind, would lead to progressive concentration of the dissolved
solutes and thus to vesicle growth as material in micelles redistributed
into the pre-existing vesicles. If the increase in surface area caused
by membrane growth occurred faster than the increase in vesicle volume,
as could happen in the presence of slowly permeating solutes such
as nucleotides, amino acids, and peptides, growth would result in
the formation of fragile filamentous vesicles. Our laboratory has
previously demonstrated that such vesicles fragment easily in response
to gentle shear forces, resulting in division into daughter vesicles.[10] Alternatively, photochemically induced membrane
tension can drive vesicle division through a pearling instability,
similarly resulting in daughter vesicles.[29] After a cycle of growth and division, an influx of fresh water,
for example, as a result of rainfall, would dilute the pond water,
restoring initial concentrations. Rapid mixing of fresh water with
concentrated pond water would probably result in dissolution of many
vesicles, while slower mixing would cause vesicle shrinkage; both
processes would increase the fraction of fatty acids present as micelles.
Vesicle division following growth into filamentous morphologies could
also retard shrinkage, as membrane loss would be favored from undivided
vesicles, which are characterized by excess membrane area. Surviving
vesicles would then be poised for another cycle of growth, driven
by evaporation, and division, induced either by wave-induced shear
forces or photochemically.Although this model is quite speculative,
it has the advantage
that cycles of growth and division would be driven entirely by environmental
fluctuations and could continue indefinitely in the absence of any
additional input of fatty acids. If such a cycle could be coupled
to the replication of encapsulated nucleic acids, the stage would
be set for the emergence of Darwinian evolution through the competitive
advantage conferred by functional nucleic acids (e.g., ribozymes).
The subsequent evolution of catalytic mechanisms to drive membrane
growth, such as the assembly of double-chain lipids,[12] would have eventually freed early cells from depending
on environmental fluctuations to drive their cell cycle.
Materials and Methods
Lipid Solutions
Fatty acids were obtained from Nu-chek
and phospholipids from Avanti Polar Lipids. Laurdan, NBD-PE (N-(7-nitrobenz-2-oxa-1,3-diazol-4-yl)-1,2-dihexadecanoyl-sn-glycero-3-phosphoethanolamine),
and Rhodamine-DHPE (Rhodamine B 1,2-dihexadecanoyl-sn-glycero-3-phosphoethanolamine)
were obtained from Invitrogen. All other reagents were from Sigma-Aldrich.
Fatty acid vesicles were prepared by mixing the fatty acids (as neat
oil) in 0.2 M bicine buffer titrated with NaOH to pH 8.5, unless otherwise
noted. This was followed by vigorous vortexing and tumbling overnight.
Micelle solutions were prepared by dissolving the fatty acid in water
and titrating with sodium hydroxide to pH 10.5, unless otherwise noted.
Phospholipid vesicles were prepared by thin-film rehydration of chloroform
solutions. Laurdan was incorporated into the solutions as a concentrated
stock in ethanol either before or after addition of buffer. FRET dyes
were incorporated into fatty acid solutions by addition in chloroform
to the neat oil, followed by rotary evaporation. Large, multilamellar
vesicles used for imaging were prepared with 2 mM 8-hydroxypyrene-1,3,6-trisulfonic
acid (HPTS), a water-soluble dye, in the buffer and were isolated
via extrusion through a 5 μm filter followed by dialysis against
a 3 μm filter, as previously described.[31] All other vesicle solutions were extruded 11 times through 100 nm
filters with an Avanti mini extruder. 50 nm vesicles were prepared
with an additional 11 passes through a 50 nm filter.
Surface Tension Measurements
Surface tensions were
measured by the Noüy ring method on a Fisher Scientific Surface
Tensiometer 21. Samples (5 mL) were prepared by serially diluting
a concentrated (100 mM) vesicle/micelle stock and then allowed to
equilibrate for at least 24 h before measuring. All measurements were
taken at 21 °C. Monomer concentrations were calculated from surface
tension plots using the Langmuir–Szyszkowski equationwhere σ is the measured surface tension;
σ0 is the surface tension with no surfactant (72.8
dyn/cm); K is the equilibrium constant for surface
adsorption; Γmax is the maximum surface excess; and c is the monomer concentration. ThereforeWe obtained Γmax from
the maximum slope of the surface tension vs log([fatty acid]) plot
according to the Gibbs isothermLastly, K was obtained
by solving for c in the linear region below the cmc/cac.
Light Scattering Measurements
Light scattering intensities
of oleate and palmitoleate solutions were measured on a PDDLS/Batch
system (Precision Detectors, Bellingham, MA). Absorbance readings
of myristoleic acid solutions were taken on an Amersham Ultraspec
3100 UV/vis spectrophotometer. All measurements were taken at 21 °C.
Laurdan Measurements
Steady state fluorescence readings
were performed on a Varian Cary Eclipse fluorimeter. General polarization
values were calculated from emission intensities at 500 and 430 nm
upon excitation at 364 nm. All measurements were taken at 21 °C.
Partition Coefficients
Micelle to vesicle partition
coefficients were derived from measured Laurdan intensities by equating
observed GP to a weighted average of micelle and vesicle GPs. Characteristic
vesicle (I500v, I430v) and micelle (I500m, I430m) Laurdan
intensities for each fatty acid were measured at pH 8.5 and 10.5,
respectively, and a concentration of either 30 mM (oleate, palmitoleate)
or 50 mM (myristoleate). The micelle/vesicle partition was calculated
by solving for Xm (micelle aggregation
fraction) and Xv (vesicle aggregation
fraction) in the followingwhere GP is the measured Laurdan polarization
for the given sample. We note that this approach carries several assumptions:
(1) the only existing aggregates are micelles or vesicles, with Laurdan
equally distributed between them on a molar basis and with minimal
contribution from the monomer phase; (2) Laurdan emission ratios at
high concentrations (30 or 50 mM) at pH 8.5 or pH 10.5 approximate
that in a pure vesicle or pure micelle solution, respectively. The
latter assumption is limited by the excess light scattering of more
concentrated vesicle solutions and the differing pKa's of the fatty acids, which likely result in a micelle:vesicle
ratio of >0 at pH 8.5 and the reference concentrations used. Partition
coefficients are therefore expressed as “apparent Xm/Xv”, which are relative
to the solution standard used.Micelle/vesicle partition coefficients
were also derived from absorbance at 400 nm (Abs400). The vesicle
fraction was calculated as proportional to the normalized absorbance
for the concentration above the cac (2 mM for myristoleate). The micelle
fraction was assumed to be the difference between this and the normalized
vesicle absorbance at 50 mM (Abs400), assuming Xv ∼ 1 at 50 mM. Thereforewhere k is the inverse of
the absorption per unit concentration of 50 nm myristoleate vesicles
and c is the solution concentration. This derivation
involves the same assumptions used as for the Laurdan partition coefficients
and is therefore comparable.
Vesicle Growth
Growth and shrinkage of 100 nm myristoleate
vesicles was monitored as previously described.[12,18] Briefly, 10 mM myristoleate vesicles were prepared with equal fractions
of Rhodamine-DHPE and NBD-DHPE at a concentration of 0.2 mol % relative
to total lipids. During experiments, FRET was recorded on a Cary Eclipse
fluorimeter (excitation 430 nm) by quantifying FRET efficiency, Fεwhere ED is the
emission of the donor (530 nm) and ED, the emission of the donor at infinite dilution,
which was measured via addition of 1% Triton X100 at the end of the
experiment. All values were adjusted for changes in volume. FRET efficiency
was equated to surface area using a standard curve of 10 mM myrisoleate
with varying concentrations of FRET dyes. Growth of large vesicles
was observed on a Nikon TE2000-S inverted microscope using a 60X extra
long working distance objective. All measurements were taken at 21
°C.
Solution Evaporation
Vesicle solutions (5 mM in 400
μL of 0.1 M Na+ bicine) were agitated via a stir
bar in opaque 5 mL vials at 35 °C. Agitation was used to keep
solutions homogeneous and prevent films from forming on the side of
the vials. This method led to an evaporation rate of approximately
10 μL/h. Identical experiments were also performed without evaporation
(using capped vials) to confirm that there was no measurable bleaching
and/or dye degradation in time scales up to 40 h. Predicted relative
surface area (SA) as a function of final concentration (c) was derived from the quadratic curve fit of the apparent Xm/Xv as a function
of concentration in Figure 5B using the followingwhere ((Xm)/(Xv)5mM) is the micelle–vesicle
partition at 5 mM (initial concentration) and ((Xm)/(Xv)) is the micelle–vesicle partition at the final concentration.
Authors: Hai Qiao; Na Hu; Jin Bai; Lili Ren; Qing Liu; Liaoqiong Fang; Zhibiao Wang Journal: Orig Life Evol Biosph Date: 2016-11-02 Impact factor: 1.950