Lipopolysaccharides (LPS) make up approximately 75% of the Gram-negative bacterial outer membrane (OM) surface, but because of the complexity of the molecule, there are very few model OMs that include LPS. The LPS molecule consists of lipid A, which anchors the LPS within the OM, a core polysaccharide region, and a variable O-antigen polysaccharide chain. In this work we used RcLPS (consisting of lipid A plus the first seven sugars of the core polysaccharide) from a rough strain of Escherichia coli to form stable monolayers of LPS at the air-liquid interface. The vertical structure RcLPS monolayers were characterized using neutron and X-ray reflectometry, while the lateral structure was investigated using grazing incidence X-ray diffraction and Brewster angle microscopy. It was found that RcLPS monolayers at surface pressures of 20 mN m(-1) and above are resolved as hydrocarbon tails, an inner headgroup, and an outer headgroup of polysaccharide with increasing solvation from tails to outer headgroups. The lateral organization of the hydrocarbon lipid chains displays an oblique hexagonal unit cell at all surface pressures, with only the chain tilt angle changing with surface pressure. This is in contrast to lipid A, which displays hexagonal or, above 20 mN m(-1), distorted hexagonal packing. This work provides the first complete structural analysis of a realistic E. coli OM surface model.
Lipopolysaccharides (LPS) make up approximately 75% of the Gram-negative bacterial outer membrane (OM) surface, but because of the complexity of the molecule, there are very few model OMs that include LPS. The LPS molecule consists of lipid A, which anchors the LPS within the OM, a core polysaccharide region, and a variable O-antigen polysaccharide chain. In this work we used RcLPS (consisting of lipid A plus the first seven sugars of the core polysaccharide) from a rough strain of Escherichia coli to form stable monolayers of LPS at the air-liquid interface. The vertical structure RcLPS monolayers were characterized using neutron and X-ray reflectometry, while the lateral structure was investigated using grazing incidence X-ray diffraction and Brewster angle microscopy. It was found that RcLPS monolayers at surface pressures of 20 mN m(-1) and above are resolved as hydrocarbon tails, an inner headgroup, and an outer headgroup of polysaccharide with increasing solvation from tails to outer headgroups. The lateral organization of the hydrocarbonlipid chains displays an oblique hexagonal unit cell at all surface pressures, with only the chain tilt angle changing with surface pressure. This is in contrast to lipid A, which displays hexagonal or, above 20 mN m(-1), distorted hexagonal packing. This work provides the first complete structural analysis of a realistic E. coli OM surface model.
The cell envelope of
Gram-negative bacteria is a complex structure.
It consists of four different components: the inner membrane, periplasm,
cell wall, and outer membrane.[1,2] The inner membrane consists
of a phospholipid bilayer and regulates the transport of materials
in and out of the bacterial cell via specific transport proteins.
The periplasm is the hydrophilic layer between the inner and outer
membranes and contains the thin mesh of the peptidoglycan cell wall
that maintains cell shape and rigidity. Finally, there is the outer
membrane. The outer membrane is a highly asymmetric bilayer with phospholipids
on the inner leaflet and lipopolysaccharides (LPS) on the outer[1] and serves as a selectively permeable barrier.
The outer membrane also contains a large variety of proteins that
include porins, which facilitate the general diffusion of small molecules
across the membrane, specialized channels and pumps for the transport
of specific molecules, lipoproteins that anchor the outer membrane
to the peptidoglycan layer, enzymes, and secretion complexes that
assemble the outer membrane.[3]LPS
(see Figure 1) consist of lipid A covalently
linked to a core polysaccharide region and the variable O-antigen.[4] Lipid A is the hydrophobic lipid component with
four to seven fatty acid chains bound to a headgroup of two phosphorylated N-acetylglucosamines.[5] The core
polysaccharide region is conserved across bacterial species and is
divided into an inner core, generally consisting of 2-keto-3-deoxyoctonoic
acid (Kdo) and l-gycero-d-manno heptose (Hep) sugars,
and an outer core of hexoses and hexosamines.[6] The O-antigen is a long chain of polysaccharides that extend out
into the environment, is highly variable, and differs between different
bacterial serotypes. Bacterial strains that contain only the lipid
A and the core region are termed rough mutants, and those that also
contain the O-antigen are termed smooth strains. The rough LPS can
be designated from Re to Ra, and this relates to the saccharides in
the core region where the rough LPS terminates (Figure 1). LPS is also known as endotoxin because lipid A released
into the bloodstream of mammals can play a key role in pathogenesis
and stimulates the innate immune system triggering effects that include
sepsis and septic shock.[7] LPS also has
pyrogenic effects. The release of LPS into the bloodstream stimulates
the production of cytokines such as interleukin-1 by macrophages.
The increased production of cytokines stimulates the hypothalamus
to produce prostaglandins, which increases the body’s core
temperature, culminating in a fever.[5,7]
Figure 1
Schematic of the organization
of Escherichia coli LPS.[4] Kdo, 2-keto-3-deoxyoctonoic acid;
Hep, l-gycero-d-manno heptose; Glc, glucose; Gal,
galactose. The lipid A tails consist of five myristoyl chains and
one palmitoyl chain. Additional phosphates and ethanolamines on the
Kdo and Hep have been omitted for clarity.
Schematic of the organization
of Escherichia coliLPS.[4] Kdo, 2-keto-3-deoxyoctonoic acid;
Hep, l-gycero-d-manno heptose; Glc, glucose; Gal,
galactose. The lipid A tails consist of five myristoyl chains and
one palmitoyl chain. Additional phosphates and ethanolamines on the
Kdo and Hep have been omitted for clarity.The dynamic nature and complex composition of real biological
membranes
has resulted in a paucity of detailed structural information. A number
of simplified models of membranes such as liposomes, black lipid membranes,
or supported bilayers have been used to study the interactions of
antimicrobial peptides,[8,9] bacterial toxins,[10−12] and drug-delivery vehicles,[13−15] as well as to understand the
physicochemical properties of membranes in nature.[16,17] There are a number of ways to create models of the bacterial outer
membrane, which include phospholipid bilayers of anionic lipids on
solid supports such as silicon.[8,9] This model simplistically
represents the bilayer and the overall charge characteristics of a
bacterial membrane. More complex models have included integral membrane
proteins such as the porin outer membrane protein F (OmpF).[18,19] However, most models of the bacterial outer membrane exclude LPS,
a key component covering approximately 75% of the membrane surface.[7]Previous studies have used LPS to create
liposomes,[20,21] liquid-supported monolayers,[22−26] or solid-supported bilayers.[27,28] However, most of these
models only use pure, very short ReLPS (lipid A plus Kdo sugars, see
Figure 1), pure lipid A, or a mix of the LPS
with other lipids. These models have been used to study the effect
of calcium ion binding[24,26] or membrane disruption by antimicrobial
agents.[23,29,30] The current
models reflect only the outer membrane surface of deep rough mutants
of Gram-negative bacteria, accounting for only a small portion of
known bacterial strains. Most Gram-negative bacteria contain smooth
LPS, which due to the long polysaccharide chain are very water-soluble
when purified. Despite this, one study has made a hybrid bilayer by
depositing smooth LPS from Pseudomonas aeruginosa onto alkyl silane monolayers.[27] In this
work we pursue the approach of studying monolayers of LPS at the air–water
interface. The primary advantage of this approach is the control of
surface pressure and hence membrane fluidity afforded. One can therefore
relatively easily study model membrane structure under conditions
where the fluidity spans the complete range expected from native bacterial
membranes. However, because of the large solubility of smooth LPS
the task of forming such monolayers is problematic. In this paper
we describe using a rough mutant of LPS from Escherichia coli, RcLPS, which contains seven sugars of the inner and outer core
polysaccharide (Figure 1), to create monolayers
at an air–water interface. We used reflectometry to investigate
the structure of the monolayers perpendicular to the surface and grazing
incidence diffraction and microscopy to investigate the lateral structure
of the layers on the nano- and microscale, respectively.
Experimental Section
Materials
All chemicals were purchased
from Sigma-Aldrich
unless otherwise stated. Organic solvents were purchased from Merck.
D2O was purchased from CDN Isotopes, Canada (for fermentation)
or Sigma-Aldrich (for neutron experiments). Hydrogenous (1H) E. coli RcLPS and lipid A were purchased from
Sigma-Aldrich.
Production of Deuterated RcLPS
Cultures
of E. coli J5 (Rc mutant, ATCC no. 43745) were adapted
to grow
in ModC1 media with increasing % D2O in a stepwise manner
as described by Chen et al.[31] D2O adapted cultures were then used to inoculate a fermenter with 1
L 100% D2O ModC1 media with 40 g L–1 1H-glycerol as the carbon source. Cells were cultured at 37 °C
until the glycerolcarbon source was exhausted, yielding 36 g of wet
cell mass.Deuterated LPS was extracted by homogenizing dried
cells with phenol/chloroform/petroleum spirit as originally described
by Galanos et al.[32] A detailed description
of fermentation and extraction can be found in the Supporting Information. The purity of the RcLPS was assessed
by SDS-PAGE (Supplemental Figure S1) and
UV absorbance at 280, 260, and 230 nm. The quantity of RcLPS was determined
by carrying out a KDO assay.[33,34] The deuteration of
the RcLPS was confirmed by FTIR spectroscopy (Supplemental Figure S2) showing strong C-D peaks at 2200 and
2100 cm–1. The neutron reflectivity data provided
a good estimate of the deuteration level of the tail region, which
was then extrapolated to the headgroup regions.
Surface Pressure
Measurements
A model 302m Langmuir
trough (Nima Technology Ltd., Coventry, U.K.) or a custom built trough
was used for surface pressure measurements. All troughs were controlled
by the Nima interface software. The liquid substrate was 20 mM sodium
phosphate pH 7.0 in all cases. For experiments where the substrate
contained D2O the difference in pH and pD was taken into
account when preparing buffers. The RcLPS was deposited onto the liquid
surface from RcLPS vesicles prepared by sonication (see Supporting Information for preparation) or from
a solution of chloroform–methanol–water (6:4:1 by volume).
Brewster Angle Microscopy Imaging
Brewster angle microscopy
(BAM) images were recorded on an EP3se imaging ellipsometer (Nanofilm
Technology, Goettingen, Germany) mounted over a Langmuir trough (model
302m, Nima Technology Ltd., Coventry, U.K.). BAM images were recorded
with fixed instrument parameters across each series of surface pressures.
Although the image intensity is not quantitative, this does give an
indication of the increasing or decreasing monolayer density with
brighter or darker images, respectively.
Neutron Reflectometry
Neutron reflectometry (NR) experiments
were carried out on the Liquids Reflectometer at the Spallation Neutron
Source (Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, TN, U.S.A.). The
instrument utilizes a wavelength range of 3.13 Å ≤ λ
≤ 11.31 Å. Reflected beam spectra were collected over
14 angles from 0.46° to 4.24° with slit settings adjusted
to maintain a constant illuminated area and data recorded on a 2D
helium-3 detector. The data were reduced by stitching together each
angle at the appropriate overlap regions, rebinning the data to instrument
resolution, and correcting for background and detector efficiency.
The final reflectivity profile is presented as a function of momentum
transfer, Q, as defined bywhere
θ is the angle of incidence, and
λ is the neutron wavelength. Additional data were collected
on the INTER reflectometer[35] at the ISIS
pulsed neutron source (Rutherford Appleton Laboratory, Didcot, U.K.).
This white beam instrument has a wavelength range of 1 Å ≤
λ ≤ 16 Å. The reflected beam was collected at 0.7°
and 2.3°, yielding a momentum transfer range of 0.010–0.35
Å–1. Both instruments used custom-made Langmuir
troughs contained within a sealed chamber to reduce evaporation of
the liquid substrate and contamination of the surface by air-borne
dust particulates.Data was analyzed using the MOTOFIT reflectivity
analysis software.[36] The LPS monolayer
is divided into a series of sublayers with a least-squares fitting
routine to minimize χ2 values by varying the thickness,
interfacial roughness, and neutron scattering length density (nSLD)
of each sublayer. The model fitting of the reflectivity profiles yields
information on the nSLD profile normal to the surface. The nSLD can
be considered to be the neutron reflective index and is a function
of the chemical composition of each material according towhere NA is Avogadro’s
number and p the mass
density, A the atomic
mass, and b the nuclear
scattering length of component i. Comparison of the
fitted nSLD for each layer to the theoretical nSLD values (Supplementary Table S1) enables the volume fraction
to be calculated. Neutrons are sensitive to isotopic composition,
and in this work D2O and air contrast matched water (ACMW)
substrates were used. The D2O substrate highlights the
hydrogenous RcLPS and lipid A and ACMW, which has a nSLD equal to
air, highlights the deuterated RcLPS. Estimates of parameter uncertainties
were obtained through using a Monte Carlo resampling procedure[18,37] on the best data fits obtained using MOTOFIT.
X-ray Reflectometry
and Grazing Incidence X-ray Diffraction
Synchrotron X-ray
reflectometry (XRR) and grazing incidence X-ray
diffraction (GIXD) experiments were carried out at the ChemMatCARS
beamline[38,39] (15ID-C) at the Advanced Photon Source (Argonne
National Laboratory, Argonne, IL, U.S.A.) with a liquid surface scattering
reflectometer. For both the XRR and GIXD experiments, a custom-built
Langmuir trough was enclosed in a hermetically sealed chamber backfilled
with helium and translated during data collection to avoid beam damage
to the monolayer. The incident X-ray energy used was 10 keV (λ
= 1.24 Å), and data were collected on a Pilatus 100 K area detector.XRR data were reduced by stitching together the data for each attenuator
setting used at the appropriate overlap regions, correcting for background,
and scaling the data so the reflectivity at the critical edge is unity.
As reflectivity decreases sharply with increasing Q, the data were plotted as RQ(4) vs Q to increase the visibility of features
in the reflectivity profiles. The XRR data were fitted using MOTOFIT
as described for the NR data analysis except that X-rays scatter from
the electron cloud rather than the nucleus and are therefore insensitive
to isotopic labeling. The X-ray scattering length density (xrSLD)
then becomeswhere re is the
Bohr electron radius (2.818 × 10–15 m) and Z is the atomic number of component i.GIXD is performed with the X-ray beam at a constant
angle of incidence
with the surface, αi, slightly below the critical
angle, αc, of the air–water interface (for
more details on GIXD analysis see Supporting Information and reviews (40−44)). In GIXD measurements, the Pilatus area detector
was used as a linear detector, with two pairs of matching horizontal
slits placed in front of the detector. The scattered intensity was
measured in two dimensions as a function of the vertical scattering
angle, αf (i.e., along the vertical direction of
the detector), where the angle between the incident and diffracted
beam is 2θ. By scanning 2θ, the horizontal scattering vector (Q) and the vertical scattering
vector (Q) can be determined
(see Supplemental Figure S3 for a pictorial
description of the experiment). The GIXD data were reduced first by
producing contour plots of intensity as a function of Q and Q. GIXD patterns were obtained by integrating intensity
along Q yielding intensity
vs Q plots. The GIXD
patterns were then fitted for background, and a Gaussian function
was fitted to each peak to determine peak position, relative intensity,
and full-width half-maximum (FWHM). Data was also integrated along Q to yield intensity vs Q plots, which provide profiles
of the Bragg rods. The Q positions of the in-plane Bragg rods correspond to repeat distances, d (= 2π/Q) and can be indexed with Miller indices
(h and k). From this the 2D unit
cell parameters (a, b, γ)
can be calculated. In GIXD only the ordered 2D crystalline alkyl chains
of the LPS contribute to the diffraction pattern. Therefore the chain-like
cylindrical molecules can pack only as either a hexagonal (a = b, γ = 120°), a distorted (rectangular) hexagonal
(a ≠ b, γ = 90°), or an oblique hexagonal (a ≠
b, γ ≠ 90°). From the unit cell parameters the area
per unit cell, area per molecule, and tilt angle of the chains from
vertical can be deduced. The Scherrer formula, which uses the FWHM
of the fitted peaks, yields information on the crystalline domain
lengths, L, of the
monolayer.
Results
Deposition and Film Stability
Initially RcLPS films
were spread on buffered liquid surfaces (20 mM sodium phosphate, pH
7.0) by rolling RcLPS vesicles using the methods as described by Lakey
and co-workers.[10,45] However RcLPS dissolved in a
chloroform–methanol–water (6:4:1 by volume) mixture,
deposited dropwise onto the liquid surface, was subsequently shown
to be preferable as it was faster and simpler with little difference
in the final film characteristics (Supplemental
Figure S4). For either method the trough barriers were set
to approximately half the trough area, and the RcLPS film was spread
to a surface pressure of 5–10 mN m–1. Once
the surface pressure had stabilized, the barriers were opened completely,
and the surface pressure was allowed to equilibrate before the pressure–area
isotherm was conducted. The profile of the isotherm shows no obvious
phase transition with just a smooth increase in surface pressure as
the area is reduced (Figure 2a). There are
discernible variations in the slope of the isotherm at 150 and 110
Å2; however, the isotherm does not display any sharp
changes in slope that would indicate a phase transition. The isotherm
resembles that of phosphatidylcholines with short saturated alkyl
chains lengths (≤C14) that display a smooth increase in surface
pressure with no marked phase transitions at ambient temperature.[46,47] RcLPS has an overall negative charge, and the pressure–area
isotherm also has a profile similar to that of the negatively charged
phospholipid dimyristoyl phosphatidylglycerol (DMPG) at ambient temperature
and physiological pH, with DMPG showing only a weak phase transition
from liquid expanded to liquid condensed states.[48] The RcLPS compresses to an area per molecule of ∼80
Å2 at surface pressures over 40 mN m–1. Phospholipids typically reach an area per molecule of about 40
Å2, where monolayer collapse occurs. The RcLPS has
five myristoyl and one palmitoyl tail, whereas phospholipids have
two chains leading to the different compressed areas. Upon multiple
compressions and relaxations of the film the pressure–area
isotherms do not completely overlay, with a small amount of hysteresis
evident on each cycle (Figure 2b). This hysteresis
is likely to be caused by small amounts of RcLPS migrating into the
bulk liquid substrate, as might be expected given the high solubility
of RcLPS. We therefore propose that the monolayer does not collapse
into a bilayer or multilayer structure but rather that at high pressures
there is slow loss of material to the subphase, which results in lower
apparent area per molecule in the isotherms at high pressures and
on repeated isotherms. The stability of the RcLPS monolayer was assessed
as a function of time at a fixed barrier area (Figure 2c) with the initial surface pressure set to 20 mN m–1. Only a 1.0 mN m–1 change in surface pressure
was observed over a 40 min period, which then plateaued, and the surface
pressure remained stable.
Figure 2
(a) Pressure–area isotherm of RcLPS deposited
from chloroform–methanol–water.
(b) Film stability of the RcLPS at the air–water interface
by multiple pressure–area isotherms with arrows showing the
direction of compression. (c) Film stability when the RcLPS film is
held at a constant barrier area as a function of time. The circles
are surface pressure (left axis), and the squares are barrier area
(right axis).
(a) Pressure–area isotherm of RcLPS deposited
from chloroform–methanol–water.
(b) Film stability of the RcLPS at the air–water interface
by multiple pressure–area isotherms with arrows showing the
direction of compression. (c) Film stability when the RcLPS film is
held at a constant barrier area as a function of time. The circles
are surface pressure (left axis), and the squares are barrier area
(right axis).
Vertical Structure of RcLPS
Monolayers
The neutron
reflectometry data were collected at 20 mN m–1 as
this pressure represents that found in cell membranes[49−51] and the film produced is also stable over the several hours required
to collect a data set (Figure 2c). Three nSLD
contrasts were collected to build a fuller picture of the RcLPS monolayers:
deuterated RcLPS on D2O and ACMW and hydrogenous RcLPS
on D2O. There is a clear difference between the h-RcLPS
and d-RcLPS NR profiles on D2O (Figure 3a), particularly with a lack of a fringe in the d-RcLPS data
at Q ≈ 0.1, indicating deuteration of the
d-RcLPS. The best fit of the data was achieved when the LPS monolayer
was split into three discrete layers that account for the alkyl tails,
inner headgroup, and outer headgroup from the air to the water substrate,
respectively (Table 1). The thickness of the
alkyl tails is 12 ± 2 Å, consistent with the theoretical
thickness of fluid phase myristoyl tails. The tails are tightly packed
with little solvent penetration as shown by the negligible (within
error) difference in nSLD between the D2O and ACMW contrasts
for d-RcLPS in the tail region (Figure 3b and
Table 1). As the alkyl tails are tightly packed
the level of the deuteration of the RcLPS can be inferred from the
reflectivity data. The theoretical nSLD of myristoyl chains is 6.82
× 10–6 Å–2 (Supplemental Table S1). For our deuterated tail
region we have a fitted nSLD value of 4.10 × 10–6 Å–2 (Table 1), and
by taking the small amount of solvent penetration into account the
resulting calculated deuteration level for the d-RcLPS is 63%. The
thickness of the RcLPS tails is also consistent with the measured
thickness of the lipid A tails (Table 1 and Supplementary Table S2).
Figure 3
(a) Neutron reflectivity
data (symbols with error bars) and fits
(solid lines) of RcLPS at the air–water interface under pressure
control at 20 mN m–1. Three contrasts were fitted
globally with h-RcLPS on D2O (black), d-RcLPS on D2O (red), and d-RcLPS on ACMW (green). (b) The corresponding
real-space nSLD profile with colors corresponding to those of the
reflectivity profile.
Table 1
Globally Fitted Neutron Reflectivity
Thicknesses and nSLDs of RcLPS Monolayer at 20 mN m–1
layer
thickness (Å)
nSLD h-RcLPS on
D2O (× 10–6 Å–2)
nSLD d-RcLPS on
D2O (× 10–6 Å–2)
nSLD d-RcLPS on
ACMW (× 10–6 Å–2)
tails
12 ± 2
0.63 ± 0.15
4.10 ± 0.89
4.65 ± 0.36
inner headgroup
14 ± 4
5.13 ± 0.59
6.90 ± 0.32
5.55 ± 0.51
outer headgroup
15 ± 3
6.23 ± 1.03
6.38 ± 0.13
1.27 ± 1.03
(a) Neutron reflectivity
data (symbols with error bars) and fits
(solid lines) of RcLPS at the air–water interface under pressure
control at 20 mN m–1. Three contrasts were fitted
globally with h-RcLPS on D2O (black), d-RcLPS on D2O (red), and d-RcLPS on ACMW (green). (b) The corresponding
real-space nSLD profile with colors corresponding to those of the
reflectivity profile.The polar headgroup of lipid A consists of two glucosamine sugars
(Figure 1). The fitted thickness of the headgroups
is 8 ± 1 Å hydrated with a solvent volume fraction of 0.722
(Supplementary Table S2 and Supplementary Figure
S5). This is quite different from the sugar moiety of the RcLPS,
which comprises the lipid A headgroups plus the first seven sugars
of the core polysaccharide. To obtain an accurate fit the RcLPS headgroup
has to be split into two layers. The first layer was 14 ± 4 Å
deep, which is clearly thicker than the lipid A headgroup alone, and
so this layer must include the lipid A headgroups plus another layer
of sugars, possibly the first layer of Kdo sugars. Water can still
penetrate through to this inner headgroup layer, however, with only
a 0.459 solvent volume fraction, and therefore the amount of solvent
in the RcLPS inner headgroups was less than in the lipid A headgroups
(cf. nSLD values for inner headgroups in Table 1 with the headgroup nSLD values in Supplementary
Table S2). To calculate the volume fraction of the inner headgroup
layer for the deuterated RcLPS headgroups, a deuteration level of
63% that was calculated from the tails region was used as the extent
of headgroup deuteration. The outer headgroup of the RcLPS was 15
± 3 Å thick but was more hydrated than the inner headgroup
with a solvent volume fraction of 0.74 ± 0.12.Synchrotron
X-ray reflectivity experiments on the RcLPS films were
carried out at surface pressures above and below those used for the
NR experiments. As the surface pressure increases, the fringe at Q ≈ 0.35 in the XRR profiles becomes more prominent
and shifts to a slightly lower Q value at the highest
surface pressure (45 mN m–1) (Figure 4a). This is indicative of the RcLPS monolayer thickening due
to increased ordering of individual molecules. At 10 mN m–1 the RcLPS monolayer is best fitted using a two-layer model split
as tails and headgroups, whereas three layer models were used for
all other surface pressures with the headgroups split into inner and
outer layers (Table 2). The tail thickness
at 10 mN m–1 was 11 Å, and increasing surface
pressure to 30 and 45 mN m–1 resulted in the thickness
of the chain region increasing to 18 and 20 Å, respectively.
This would be anticipated if the tails become more upright with surface
pressure increases (Table 2 and Figure 4b). The total thickness of the headgroups increased
from 14 Å at a surface pressure of 10 mN m–1 to 16 Å at 45 mN m–1. This is likely due
to the headgroups also becoming more orientated at higher surface
pressures. The thickness of the outer headgroup region remains relatively
constant with little change in thickness at the higher surface pressures
(Table 2).
Figure 4
(a) X-ray reflectivity data (symbols with
error bars) and fits
(solid lines) of RcLPS at the air–water interface under pressure
control at 10 mN m–1 (black), 30 mN m–1 (red), and 45 mN m–1 (green). (b) The corresponding
real-space xrSLD profile with colors corresponding to those in the
reflectivity profile.
Table 2
Thickness and xrSLD from X-ray Reflectometry
Data of RcLPS Monolayers at Different Surface Pressures
tails
inner
headgroup
outer
headgroup
surface pressure (mN m–1)
thickness (Å)
xrSLD (× 10–6 Å–2)
thickness (Å)
xrSLD (× 10–6 Å–2)
thickness (Å)
xrSLD (× 10–6 Å–2)
10
11 ± 1
7.93 ± 0.04
14 ± 1
12.20 ± 0.01
30
18 ± 1
9.73 ± 0.01
6 ± 1
13.08 ± 0.02
11 ± 1
10.38 ± 0.02
45
20 ± 1
9.62 ± 0.01
5 ± 1
13.91 ± 0.02
11 ± 1
10.84 ± 0.04
(a) X-ray reflectivity data (symbols with
error bars) and fits
(solid lines) of RcLPS at the air–water interface under pressure
control at 10 mN m–1 (black), 30 mN m–1 (red), and 45 mN m–1 (green). (b) The corresponding
real-space xrSLD profile with colors corresponding to those in the
reflectivity profile.
Lateral Structure of the RcLPS Film
GIXD enables the
study of the in-plane structure of the RcLPS and lipid A films as
a function of surface pressure. A monolayer is not a single crystal,
but rather consists of crystalline domains that are randomly orientated
around the surface normal, creating a 2D powder.[42] In this work these domains are nanocrystalline with domain
lengths, L, ranging
from 94 to 748 Å (Table 3). When the RcLPS
monolayer is at low surface pressures of ∼3 mN m–1 there are three in-plane peaks with a weak signal (Figure 5). At 20 mN m–1 these peaks become
more intense and more clearly defined, with the highest surface pressure
(45 mN m–1) achieving greatest observed intensity
(Figures 5 and 6). This
implies that there is an increasing amount of nanocrystalline RcLPS
material in the monolayer with increasing surface pressure. When the
GIXD data in Figure 5 is integrated along Q (Figure 6a) the in-plane peaks can be indexed with the Miller indices
of {10}, {01}, and {1-1} corresponding to an oblique hexagonal packing
of the hydrocarbon chains of the RcLPS. There is also a broad out-of-plane
peak (Q = 1.343 Å–1) at 3 mM m–1 that shifts to higher
values of Q as the
surface pressure increases, eventually merging with the in-plane peak
at Q = 1.498 at 45
mN m–1 (Figures 5 and 6a). As shown in Table 3,
the unit cell dimensions vary with surface pressure but generally a ≈ 4.33 Å, b ≈ 4.25
Å, and γ ≈ 81.3°, which confirms the oblique
hexagonal packing (a ≠ b,
γ ≠ 90°) and corresponds to an area per unit cell, Acell ≈ 18.2 Å2, consistent
with literature values for lipid hydrocarbon tails of DPPG, lipid
A, and ReLPS[23,24,29,41] and gives an area per LPS molecule of 109
Å2. Figure 6b shows the GIXD
data integrated along Q, and the peak at Q = 0 is the Vineyard–Yoneda peak, which results from interference
by the diffracted X-rays from the Bragg rod and reflected rays at
the interface. No further peaks after Q = 0 indicate no or little molecular tilting from
the surface normal, whereas a peak at Q > 0 (e.g., 10 mM m–1 in Figure 6b) indicates tilting. Calculation of the tilt angle
shows that it changes with surface pressure. At 3 mN m–1 the tilt angle is 28.9°, decreasing to 14.9° at 45 mN
m–1 (Table 3), demonstrating
that the RcLPS becomes more perpendicular to the plane of the surface
as surface pressure increases.
Table 3
RcLPS Monolayer Crystalline
Parameters
Determined by GIXD as a Function of Surface Pressure
surface pressure (mN m–1)
a, b (Å)
γ (deg)
Acell (Å2)
Ao (Å2)
Amol (Å2)
tilt angle (deg)
Lxy (Å)
3
4.39, 4.25
80.6
18.4
16.1
110.4
28.9
110, 543, —
10
4.37, 4.25
80.8
18.3
16.3
109.8
27.2
288, 513, —
20
4.33, 4.24
81.3
18.2
16.7
109.2
23.0
194, 353, 424
30
4.27, 4.19
82.1
17.8
16.6
106.8
21.1
284, 317, 379
35
4.29,
4.24
81.8
18.0
17.1
108.0
17.8
394, 421, 480
40
4.32, 4.24
81.3
18.1
17.4
108.6
16.5
100, 547, 481
45
4.32,
4.25
81.4
18.2
17.5
109.2
14.9
94, 748, 528
Figure 5
BAM (left) and GIXD (right) images for
an RcLPS film at (A) 45,
(B) 35, (C) 10, and (D) 3 mN m–1. The Bragg rods
in the GIXD can be seen at Q ≈ 1.47, 1.51, and 1.68 Å–1,
which result from the diffraction of the crystalline lipid tails.
The out-of-plane peak that shifts with surface pressure can also be
observed at Q, Q 1.472, 0.39 Å–1 in panel A and 1.34, 0.74 Å–1 in panel D.
Figure 6
(a) 2D
plots of the GIXD data integrated over Q with points as the collected data and
lines as the fits. (b) 2D plots of the GIXD data integrated over Q for 45 mN m–1 (squares) and 10 mN m–1 (circles).
BAM (left) and GIXD (right) images for
an RcLPS film at (A) 45,
(B) 35, (C) 10, and (D) 3 mN m–1. The Bragg rods
in the GIXD can be seen at Q ≈ 1.47, 1.51, and 1.68 Å–1,
which result from the diffraction of the crystalline lipid tails.
The out-of-plane peak that shifts with surface pressure can also be
observed at Q, Q 1.472, 0.39 Å–1 in panel A and 1.34, 0.74 Å–1 in panel D.BAM provides a lateral view
of the RcLPS monolayers on the micrometer
scale. In the BAM images (Figure 5) there is
no evidence for the formation of domains, demonstrating that there
were no clear phase transitions as a function of surface pressure.
This is consistent with the GIXD data and the area–pressure
isotherms (Figures 5 and 2). As the surface pressure decreases, the images became darker, indicating
a reduced density or packing of the monolayer at lower surface pressures.(a) 2D
plots of the GIXD data integrated over Q with points as the collected data and
lines as the fits. (b) 2D plots of the GIXD data integrated over Q for 45 mN m–1 (squares) and 10 mN m–1 (circles).
Discussion
In this work we have
carried out a detailed structural analysis
of monolayers of LPS from a rough mutant of E. coli at the air–water interface. The deposition of this water-soluble
biomolecule has been successfully carried out from an organic solution,
and as far as we are aware this is the longest pure LPS molecule to
be successfully deposited at an air–liquid interface. There
have been reports of deposition of smooth LPS molecules at the air–water
interface, but the smooth LPS has to be mixed with a phospholipid
to achieve a stable monolayer.[52] LPS from Pseudomonas aeruginosa PAO1 strain, which contains a variety
of smooth and rough LPS with different length polysaccharide chains,[53] has been deposited to form monolayers at the
air–water interface.[22] The current
work is a significant advance because the use of a single pure form
of LPS provides clear structural information. The maximum surface
pressure achieved using RcLPS (45 mN m–1; Figure 2) is similar to that from monolayers of P. aeruginosa smooth LPS (52 mN m–1).[22] Furthermore, the isotherms of RcLPS are similar
to those of the shorter, more hydrophobic ReLPS and lipid A.The total thickness of the RcLPS monolayer at 20 mN m–1 is 41 Å, and the monolayer can be divided into three distinct
layers (Figure 3b and Table 1). The upper (in air) layer comprises the lipid tails, mainly
myristoyl chains. The maximum thickness that these can extend has
been reported as approximately 17 Å,[54] which is consistent with the thickness of the lipid A tails component
of the RcLPS and lipid A observed in our studies (Tables 1 and 2 and Supplementary Table S2). From the XRR analysis the hydrocarbon
chains were found to be slightly thicker, 18 Å and 20 Å
at surface pressures of 30 and 40 mN m–1, respectively,
which is within the margin of error and shows that at these pressures
the tails are perpendicular to the plane of the surface. This slight
increase compared to the theoretical maximum thickness may indicate
that the monolayer structure is being influenced by packing constraints
of the large headgroups. This would not be an issue for simple molecules
such as myristic acid where the headgroup has a similar or smaller
projected area than the tail. The RcLPS inner headgroup thickness
was determined by NR to be 14 Å at 20 mN m–1. This became thinner at the higher surface pressures (cf. Tables 1 and 2), but the larger Q-range accessible via X-ray measurements gave a higher
spatial resolution, and the inner headgroup thickness is consistent
with the headgroup of lipid A only. Jeworrek et al.[24] found that the headgroup thickness for ReLPS (Figure 1) was 12 Å at 20 mN m–1.
In addition, neutron diffraction studies of P. aeruginosa LPS found that the inner core polysaccharides are 13 Å thick.[53] These results are consistent with the inner
headgroup thickness determined in this work, and it is likely that
the inner headgroup consists of the lipid Aglucosamine headgroup
and the Kdo sugars and therefore the outer headgroups are the remaining
sugars (Figure 7). The hydration of the inner
headgroup is lower than that of the outer headgroup (Figure 3b), but this is consistent with previous observations,[53,55] which found a decreased hydration of the inner core polysaccharide
with increasing hydration in the outer core and further increases
in hydration at the O-antigen. Studies investigating Ca2+ binding to LPS found that Ca2+ ions are concentrated
at the core polysaccharide region[27,55] and that Ca2+ is likely to bind predominately to the Kdo sugars of ReLPS,[25,26] increasing the cross-linking of the inner core polysaccharide moieties.
This would, consistent with our observations, reduce the solvation
of the inner core polysaccharide region. Since we avoided the use
of chelating agents such as EDTA our system will contain sufficient
trace amounts of Ca2+ in buffers and RcLPS preparations
to stabilize the inner headgroups in this way.
Figure 7
Arrangement
of RcLPS at the air–water interface. The RcLPS
can be split into three discrete layers at surface pressures of 20
mN m–1 and above. The 2D crystalline tails pack
as an oblique hexagonal with a total area of 109 Å2 and with a tilt angle from the surface normal of the RcLPS molecules
that varies with surface pressure.
In addition to
studying the vertical structure of the RcLPS monolayers,
the chain packing and lateral structure were also investigated using
GIXD and BAM (Figures 5 and 6). At all surface pressures an oblique hexagonal packing was
observed, which is consistent with GIXD observations of Salmonella
Minnesota R595 ReLPS monolayers apart from at low surface
pressures (<10 mN m–1) where distorted hexagonal
packing was observed.[24] GIXD experiments
with E. coli ReLPS showed no lateral ordering of
the hydrocarbon tails in the absence of Ca2+ and chelating
agents, with no diffraction observed, even at 30 mN m–1.[25] Our observations with E. coli RcLPS were quite different as Bragg rods were observed at surface
pressures as low as 3 mN m–1 (Figures 5d and 6a). However, as mentioned earlier,
our preparations would have contained Ca2+ in the RcLPS
polysaccharide regions. As GIXD observes only the organization of
the hydrocarbon tails, one would expect the observations for lipid
A and RcLPS monolayers to be similar. However the influence of the
polysaccharide moieties on the chain packing was quite apparent. For
lipid A monolayers, distorted hexagonal or hexagonal packing has been
observed for surface pressures at or above 20 mN m–1,[23,29,30] whereas in
our investigation of RcLPS only oblique hexagonal packing was seen,
demonstrating that polysaccharide chain length has an impact on the
organization of the hydrocarbon chains. This has important consequences
for our understanding of the packing of the bacterial outer membrane.Figure 7 summarizes the orientation and
conformation of the RcLPS at the air–water interface. The area
per RcLPS molecule is surprisingly constant over all surface pressures,
demonstrating that the crystalline areas of the film, when formed,
do not change their packing. With increasing surface pressure these
crystalline regions of the film cover an increasing proportion of
the surface probably via the formation of new 2D nanocrystallites
(see increasing intensity in Figure 6a). The
size of the domains, however, remains in the hundreds of Ångström
scale, and the crystalline regions are therefore not visible via BAM
(Figure 5). One would assume that the crystalline
area per molecule is the minimal value that can be obtained within
the monolayer. The smaller areas obtained from the Langmuir isotherms
are attributed to material being lost to the subphase rather than
monolayer collapse into bi- or multilayer films. We see no evidence
in the X-ray scattering for anything other than monolayer films.Arrangement
of RcLPS at the air–water interface. The RcLPS
can be split into three discrete layers at surface pressures of 20
mN m–1 and above. The 2D crystalline tails pack
as an oblique hexagonal with a total area of 109 Å2 and with a tilt angle from the surface normal of the RcLPS molecules
that varies with surface pressure.
Conclusions
We have successfully deposited stable monolayers
of pure E. coli RcLPS at the air–liquid interface
(using
20 mM sodium phosphate pH 7 as the liquid phase). The RcLPS monolayer
reaches high surface pressures (45 mN m–1), beyond
that likely to be encountered in the native Gram-negative bacterial
cell membrane. Langmuir monolayers are therefore able to produce model
monolayer surfaces with realistic surface topology and molecular fluidity.
This successful creation of a stable RcLPS monolayer allowed the structure
to be probed using a variety of techniques. Neutron reflectometry
with its resolution enhanced by the deuteration of RcLPS showed that
the RcLPS forms a structured 41 Å thick monolayer. This can be
described by sublayers of tails, inner headgroups, and outer headgroups
with increasing hydration from tails to outer headgroups. X-ray reflectivity
and GIXD show that the RcLPS molecules arrange themselves more perpendicular
to the surface with increasing surface pressure. These nanoscale structural
changes observed by GIXD were not replicated on the microscale in
Brewster angle microscopy analysis. This work not only provides valuable
information on the structure of LPS at the air–liquid interface
but also facilitates the development of more realistic Gram-negative
bacterial membranes to study antimicrobial agent binding and bacterial
interactions with surfaces.
Authors: Duncan J McGillivray; Gintaras Valincius; Frank Heinrich; Joseph W F Robertson; David J Vanderah; Wilma Febo-Ayala; Ilja Ignatjev; Mathias Lösche; John J Kasianowicz Journal: Biophys J Date: 2009-02-18 Impact factor: 4.033
Authors: Mikhail A Proskurnin; Elizaveta V Ageeva; Vera V Senyuta; Nataliya V Orlova; Andrei V Fokin; Oleg B Ovchinnikov; Sergei V Egerev Journal: Talanta Date: 2009-12-21 Impact factor: 6.057
Authors: Lin Wang; Joseph W Brauner; Guangru Mao; Erika Crouch; Barbara Seaton; James Head; Kelly Smith; Carol R Flach; Richard Mendelsohn Journal: Biochemistry Date: 2008-07-12 Impact factor: 3.162
Authors: Luke A Clifton; Christopher L Johnson; Alexandra S Solovyova; Phil Callow; Kevin L Weiss; Helen Ridley; Anton P Le Brun; Christian J Kinane; John R P Webster; Stephen A Holt; Jeremy H Lakey Journal: J Biol Chem Date: 2011-11-10 Impact factor: 5.157
Authors: Thatyane M Nobre; Michael W Martynowycz; Konstantin Andreev; Ivan Kuzmenko; Hiroshi Nikaido; David Gidalevitz Journal: Biophys J Date: 2015-12-15 Impact factor: 4.033
Authors: Joseph T Buchman; Ali Rahnamoun; Kaitlin M Landy; Xi Zhang; Ariane M Vartanian; Lisa M Jacob; Catherine J Murphy; Rigoberto Hernandez; Christy L Haynes Journal: Environ Sci Nano Date: 2017-12-20
Authors: Kurt H Jacobson; Ian L Gunsolus; Thomas R Kuech; Julianne M Troiano; Eric S Melby; Samuel E Lohse; Dehong Hu; William B Chrisler; Catherine J Murphy; Galya Orr; Franz M Geiger; Christy L Haynes; Joel A Pedersen Journal: Environ Sci Technol Date: 2015-08-12 Impact factor: 9.028
Authors: Selen Manioglu; Seyed Majed Modaresi; Noah Ritzmann; Johannes Thoma; Sarah A Overall; Alexander Harms; Gregory Upert; Anatol Luther; Alexander B Barnes; Daniel Obrecht; Daniel J Müller; Sebastian Hiller Journal: Nat Commun Date: 2022-10-21 Impact factor: 17.694
Authors: Nicolò Paracini; Luke A Clifton; Maximilian W A Skoda; Jeremy H Lakey Journal: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A Date: 2018-07-23 Impact factor: 11.205
Authors: Hyea Hwang; Nicolò Paracini; Jerry M Parks; Jeremy H Lakey; James C Gumbart Journal: Biochim Biophys Acta Biomembr Date: 2018-09-29 Impact factor: 3.747