Sriram Vaidyanathan1, Bradford G Orr, Mark M Banaszak Holl. 1. Departments of Biomedical Engineering, ‡Chemistry, and §Physics, ∥the Program in Applied Physics, and ⊥the Michigan Nanotechnology Institute for Medicine and Biological Sciences, University of Michigan , Ann Arbor, Michigan 48109, United States.
Abstract
Detergents have several biological applications but present cytotoxicity concerns, since they can solubilize cell membranes. Using the IonFlux 16, an ensemble whole cell planar patch clamp, we observed that anionic sodium dodecyl sulfate (SDS), cationic cetyltrimethylammonium bromide (CTAB), and cationic, fluorescent octadecyl rhodamine B (ORB) increased the membrane permeability of cells substantially within a second of exposure, under superfusion conditions. Increased permeability was irreversible for 15 min. At subsolubilizing detergent concentrations, patched cells showed increased membrane currents that reached a steady state and were intact when imaged using fluorescence microscopy. SDS solubilized cells at concentrations of 2 mM (2× CMC), while CTAB did not solubilize cells even at concentrations of 10 mM (1000× CMC). The relative activity for plasma membrane current induction was 1:20:14 for SDS, CTAB, and ORB, respectively. Under quiescent conditions, the relative ratio of lipid to detergent in cell membranes at the onset of membrane permeability was 1:7:5 for SDS, CTAB, and ORB, respectively. The partition constants (K) for SDS, CTAB, and ORB were 23000, 55000, and 39000 M(-1), respectively. Combining the whole cell patch clamp data and XTT viability data, SDS ≤ 0.2 mM and CTAB and ORB ≤ 1 mM induced cell membrane permeability without causing acute toxicity.
Detergents have several biological applications but present cytotoxicity concerns, since they can solubilize cell membranes. Using the IonFlux 16, an ensemble whole cell planar patch clamp, we observed that anionic sodium dodecyl sulfate (SDS), cationic cetyltrimethylammonium bromide (CTAB), and cationic, fluorescent octadecyl rhodamine B (ORB) increased the membrane permeability of cells substantially within a second of exposure, under superfusion conditions. Increased permeability was irreversible for 15 min. At subsolubilizing detergent concentrations, patched cells showed increased membrane currents that reached a steady state and were intact when imaged using fluorescence microscopy. SDS solubilized cells at concentrations of 2 mM (2× CMC), while CTAB did not solubilize cells even at concentrations of 10 mM (1000× CMC). The relative activity for plasma membrane current induction was 1:20:14 for SDS, CTAB, and ORB, respectively. Under quiescent conditions, the relative ratio of lipid to detergent in cell membranes at the onset of membrane permeability was 1:7:5 for SDS, CTAB, and ORB, respectively. The partition constants (K) for SDS, CTAB, and ORB were 23000, 55000, and 39000 M(-1), respectively. Combining the whole cell patch clamp data and XTT viability data, SDS ≤ 0.2 mM and CTAB and ORB ≤ 1 mM induced cell membrane permeability without causing acute toxicity.
Detergents are employed for a wide variety
of applications in biology
including dissolving cell membranes,[1−4] isolating membrane components such as proteins,[5] transport of agents such as drugs and genes into
the cell,[6] adjuvants in vaccination,[7] and providing aqueous solubility to hydrophobic
and/or nanoscale materials.[8] In part, this
wide variety of roles stems from the ability to vary both the headgroup
size and charge of a detergent, as well as the length and shape of
the hydrocarbon tail. However, a common detergent such as sodium dodecyl
sulfate (SDS) is able to play many of the roles described above by
varying the concentration. This great variety of applications indicates
the detergent/membrane interaction is multifaceted and has substantial
continued promise for biological manipulation. In order to fulfill
this promise, increased understanding of the balance between the roles
in enhanced transport, membrane permeability, and overall dissolution
of the cell membrane is needed.The theory of detergent interaction
with cell plasma membranes
has been developed using homogeneous phospholipid bilayer models.
The interaction is generally proposed to go through a three-stage
equilibrium model (see the Supporting Information, Figure S1) as the detergent/lipid (D/L) ratio increases:[1−4]intercalation
of non-micellar detergent
into the bilayerequilibrium
coexistence of phospholipid-saturated
D/L micelles with detergent-saturated phospholipid bilayerdissolution of detergent-saturated
phospholipid bilayer into D/L micelles.These three stages, although a simplification when considering
detergent interaction with a cell plasma membrane containing numerous
other components including proteins and cholesterol,[5,9] nevertheless provide a starting point for considering the detergent/plasma
membrane interaction and the experiments used to probe the biophysical
outcomes. There are also three steps considered as important for the
kinetics of the detergent/lipid bilayer interaction:[4]insertion into the outer leaflet of
the bilayer, ranging from milliseconds to secondsequilibration between the outer and
inner leaflets, ranging from milliseconds to daysequilibration between the inner
leaflet and the inner aqueous compartment occurring over minutes to
daysWhen considering the interaction
of detergents with most cell types,
both the thermodynamic and kinetic aspects described above fail to
take account of active processes, particularly lipid cycling between
the outer cell plasma membrane and the inner cellular membranes, which
can serve to replenish lipid and other components, as well as transport
detergent to the cell interior. For most eukaryotic cell types, the
plasma membrane represents less than 5% total membrane composition
of the cells.[10] In this regard, the structure
and dynamics of most eukaryotic cell plasma membranes differ substantially
from that of lipid bilayer vesicle models or that of red blood cells
(erythrocytes), in which the plasma membrane is the only membrane
present. Another significant difference between physiological exposure
of cells to detergent as compared to both model bilayer systems and
most in vitro cell models is the choice of quiescent
versus flowing systems. Most cell-based experiments to date have been
performed as quiescent experiments using erythrocytes,[11−14] although HeLa[15] and B16[16] cells have also been employed. The erythrocyte studies
generally use hemolysis as a primary assay for membrane permeability,
although the ability of this assay to effectively test stage I intercalation
events has been questioned.[13] Studies testing
whether detergent-induced transbilayer lipid motion (flip-flop) was
an early stage I event that could be directly related to cell membrane
leakage determined that flip-flop and permeability were independent
events.In studies with a variety of positively charged nanomaterials
including
synthetic mimics of antimicrobial peptides, antimicrobial peptides,
proteins, polymers, and particles on eukaryotic cells such as KB,
Rat2, HeLa, and HEK293A, we and others noted that cell plasma membranes
showed evidence of membrane leakage (lactate dehydrogenase (LDH),
propidium iodide (PI), and fluorescein assays; increased membrane
current) caused by disruption of the membrane and/or membrane pore
formation far below concentrations that induced lysis.[17−22] In model membrane systems, we and others have noted the direct introduction
of nanoscale holes or pores, membrane thinning, and membrane intercalation.[17,18,23−30] Increased membrane current was ascribed to structural membrane disruption
or pore formation because the current induction was not cation specific
and lacked rectification, as would be observed for ion-channel-based
changes in current.[19] With these findings
in hand, and considering the extensive studies discussed above using
detergents that also have a rich nanoscale structure, we were interested
in exploring the stage I to II interactions of detergent with eukaryotic
cell membranes. In particular, we wanted to take advantage of the
sensitivity of electrical measurements using a whole cell patch clamp
as a complementary approach to the hemolysis studies most common in
the literature.In this paper, we examine the interaction of
SDS, CTAB, and ORB
with HEK 293A cells using an automated planar patch clamp (IonFlux
16). The following major conclusions were reached: (1) detergent partitions
from solution to cell plasma membrane much faster (seconds) than detergent
exchanges between the plasma membrane and internal cell membranes
(minutes), (2) detergent-induced cell membrane permeability does not
decrease after removal of detergent from the external solution over
a time period of >15 min, even with active equilibration with internal
membranes, (3) XTT assays indicated ranges of detergent-induced cell
plasma membrane permeability that were not acutely toxic, (4) the
relative activity of SDS, CTAB, and ORB for the induction of membrane
permeability HEK 293A cells was quantified for both superfusion and
quiescent conditions, (5) whole cell patch clamp measurement of current
induction was employed to obtain partition coefficients for SDS, CTAB,
and ORB with the HEK 293A cells.The IonFlux 16 uses the whole
cell patch clamp configuration to
measure the changes in membrane conductance for 16 groups of 20 cells
in 8 independent patterns (320 patched cells per experimental run)
(Figure 1). This instrument has a number of
advantages/differences as compared to a traditional whole cell patch
clamp[19] using a single cell/electrode combination
including (1) simultaneous ability to run multiple repeats and/or
multiple exposure concentrations, (2) subsecond ability to change
concentration, (3) continuous superfusion environment, and (4) ready
posthoc analysis following electrical characterization of all 320
cells using fluorescence microscopy. Electrical characterization of
cell plasma membrane permeability was obtained for all three detergents
under dynamic exposure most closely related to thermodynamic stages
I and II and kinetic stages i–iii. For SDS exposure, progression
to stage III occurred as concentration increased, as evidenced by
the observation of open channel currents. For both CTAB and ORB, intercalation
did not result in progression to stage III (membrane dissolution),
consistent with the elegant physical chemical studies of Seelig et
al.[31] and Xia and Onyuksel[32] on lipid bilayer models that the headgroup dramatically
effects tendency toward micellization. Consistent with their results,
we observe SDS inducing micellization and complete dissolution of
the cells for a 2 mM exposure, whereas the cell plasma membranes remain
intact up to 10 and 1.4 mM for CTAB and ORB, respectively. Considering
the ability of each detergent to induce membrane permeability prior
to micellization occurring, we find that the relative activity as
a function of concentration under flow conditions is 1:20:14 for SDS,
CTAB, and ORB, respectively.
Figure 1
(A) The IonFlux 16 consists of a 96-well plate
with eight patterns
(colored in gray and black and numbered in orange circles). (B) Each
pattern has two trap wells (trap 1, trap 2) that are filled with ICS.
Cells are loaded in the “INLET” wells, and waste is
collected in the “OUTLET” well. Compounds are loaded
in wells C1–C8. (C) A zoomed in view of the trap zones. The
cells are suspended in ECS flow in the “main channel”,
which flows past the trap zones. When a compound is released, the
laminar flow ensures that the compound and ECS streams do not mix.
(D) Image showing cells trapped in a trap zone. (Parts A–C
were developed by Fluxion Biosciences.)
(A) The IonFlux 16 consists of a 96-well plate
with eight patterns
(colored in gray and black and numbered in orange circles). (B) Each
pattern has two trap wells (trap 1, trap 2) that are filled with ICS.
Cells are loaded in the “INLET” wells, and waste is
collected in the “OUTLET” well. Compounds are loaded
in wells C1–C8. (C) A zoomed in view of the trap zones. The
cells are suspended in ECS flow in the “main channel”,
which flows past the trap zones. When a compound is released, the
laminar flow ensures that the compound and ECS streams do not mix.
(D) Image showing cells trapped in a trap zone. (Parts A–C
were developed by Fluxion Biosciences.)In order to understand the nature of detergent induced membrane
permeability further, we also subjected cells to detergent exposure
for 10–300 s and monitored if the membrane currents returned
to baseline levels. For SDS (at sub-solubilizing concentrations),
CTAB, and ORB, we observed that the increase in membrane permeability
caused within 10 s of detergent exposure was not reversible for over
15 min. Further work is necessary to determine if this increased membrane
permeability can be chronic and its long-term impact on cellular function in vitro and in vivo.In order to
understand the impact of changes in lipid concentration
on the detergent induced membrane permeability, we also performed
experiments under quiescent, equilibrium conditions by mixing detergent
with varying numbers of cells followed by patching the cells and measuring
the resulting membrane currents. Partitioning assays have been widely
used in the literature to measure the lipid bilayer composition and
partition constant of detergents in the bilayer.[1−4,11−13,33−37] The concentration of detergent required to induce a given magnitude
of membrane permeability is linearly related to the lipid concentration.
At a fixed membrane perturbation level, the amount of total detergent
in the system is constant, as presented in eq 1 where Db denotes detergent in bilayer
and Dw denotes detergent in water.[1−4]Rb is the ratio
of detergent to lipid (L) in the bilayer for a given
level of membrane disruption, as given in eq 2.[1−4] Substituting eq 2 in eq 1 results in eq 3.The partitioning of detergent into the lipid membrane can
be described
by a model (eq 4) where the mole fraction of
detergent in the bilayer (Xb) is related
to the detergent in water (Dw) through
a partition constant (K).[1−4]The substitution of eqs 2 and 4 into eq 3 results
in eq 5.[1−4]This experiment thus allows
us to readily
compare our patch clamp derived data with extensive literature in
the field. We have determined the partition constants of SDS, CTAB,
and ORB in the membrane to be 23000, 55000, and 39000 M–1, respectively. Fluorescence experiments for ORB indicated that detergent
intercalated into the outer leaflet was internalized into the inner
cellular membranes over the approximately 20 min time period of these
experiments. The combination of the whole cell patch clamp data and
XTT viability data suggest there is a range, ≤0.2 mM for SDS
and ≤1 mM for CTAB and ORB, where detergent exposure can cause
long-term plasma membrane permeability without causing acute toxicity.
The results from our experiments indicate that additional work is
needed to understand the role of low doses of these classes of materials
on inducing inflammatory responses.
Experimental Methods
SDS and CTAB were obtained from Sigma-Aldrich (Sigma-Aldrich; St.
Louis, MO). ORB was obtained from Life technologies (Carlsbad, CA).
Other reagents were obtained from Fisher Scientific unless mentioned
otherwise.
Ensemble Whole-Cell Patch Clamp Using IonFlux 16
Solutions
Extracellular solution (ECS) consisted of
138 mM NaCl, 4 mM KCl, 1.8 mM CaCl2, 1 mM MgCl2, 10 mM HEPES, and 5.6 mM glucose adjusted to pH 7.45 using NaOH.
Intracellular solution (ICS) consisted of 100 mM potassium aspartate,
30 mM KCl, 5 mM MgCl2, 5 mM EGTA, 4 mM Tris ATP, and 10
mM HEPES adjusted to pH 7.2 using KOH. SDS and CTAB stock solutions
were made by dissolving the detergents in ECS to obtain a final concentration
of 10 mM. Other concentrations were obtained by serial dilution of
the stock solution in ECS. A 10 mg portion of octadecyl rhodamine
B (ORB) was dissolved in 0.5 mL of DMSO (final stock concentration
27.4 mM). A 100 μL portion of stock was added to 1.9 mL of ECS
to obtain 1.37 mM ORB in ECS + 5% DMSO. Lower concentrations of ORB
were obtained by performing serial dilutions in ECS.
Determining
Critical Micelle Concentrations of Detergents in
ECS
The fluorimetric method described by Chattopadhyay and
London was used to determine the CMC of SDS and CTAB in the ECS.[38] Briefly, 10 μL of 1 mM diphenyl-(1,6)-hexatriene
(DPH) dissolved in tetrahydrofuran was added to detergents dissolved
in ECS. The fluorescence of these samples was measured using a FluoroMax-2
instrument (Horiba Instruments Inc.). The excitation wavelength was
358 nm. Emission was measured from 400 to 500 nm. Above the CMC, when
detergents are present as micelles, DPH is incorporated into the micelles
and there is a sharp increase in fluorescence.
Cell Culture
Materials
Complete media was made by adding
50 mL fetal bovine serum, 5 mL nonessential amino acids, and 5 mL
penicillin-streptomycin to 500 mL DMEM high glucose with sodium pyruvate
and glutamine (Thermo Scientific). Serum free media (SFMII) for a
suspension culture of HEK 293A cells was purchased from Invitrogen.
Detachin was purchased from Gelantis Inc. PBS (1X) without Ca2+ and Mg2+ was obtained from Thermo Scientific.
Cell Preparation for Whole Cell Patch Clamp
HEK 293A
cells (Cat. No. CRL-1573; ATCC; passages 12–17) were cultured
in 175 cm2 flasks in complete media at 37 °C and 5%
CO2. The cells were cultured to ∼90% confluency
(∼20–25 million cells). The cells were suspended by
first washing with 10 mL of PBS and suspended by treatment with 5
mL of detachin at 37 °C for 5 min. A 5 mL portion of compete
media was added, and the cells were triturated. The suspension was
centrifuged at 1000 rpm for 2 min (220g), and the
supernatant was discarded. The cells were suspended in SFM II supplemented
with 25 mM HEPES and Pen-Strep, placed in a 25 cm2 suspension
flask and shaken at 75 rpm for 5 min. Employing SFMII as opposed to
the regular serum free DMEM resulted in a roughly 3-fold increase
in cell count and was critical for achieving improved seal resistance
in each trapping zone. The cells were triturated and counted using
a cytometer at this stage. The suspension was centrifuged at 1000
rpm for 2 min. The cells were suspended in (ECS). The cells were centrifuged,
resuspended in ECS to a concentration of 8–12 million cells/mL,
and loaded in the IonFlux 16 96-well microfluidic plate.
Staining
with PKH26
In order to determine if cells
were present and intact at the patch clamp sites after experimental
treatments including exposure to ECS, SDS, and CTAB, we stained cells
with membrane dye PKH26 according to the instructions from Sigma-Aldrich.
Briefly, ∼20 million cells were suspended in serum free media
using detachin as described above. The cells were centrifuged at 1400
rpm (431g) for 1 min. The supernatant was discarded,
and the cells were suspended in serum free DMEM. The cells were once
again centrifuged at 1400 rpm and suspended in 1 mL of diluent C.
A 4 μL portion of PKH26 (1 mM in ethanol) was dissolved in 1
mL of diluent C. The cell suspension was mixed with the PKH26 solution
and incubated for 5 min with periodic mixing every 5 min. A 10 mL
portion of complete media was added to stop the staining process.
The cells were washed with complete media three times and suspended
in SFM II. The cells were then counted and suspended in ECS for use
in the whole cell patch clamp experiments.
Whole Cell
Patch Clamp Using the IonFlux 16
The IonFlux
16 consists of a 96-well microwell plate etched with microfluidic
channels at the plate bottom as previously described by Ionescu-Zanetti
et al. (Figure 1).[39] Solutions flow over patched cells, giving a superfusion environment
for detergent exposure. Each plate is divided into eight patterns
containing two zones that trap 20 cells each. The current trace obtained
by each electrode is the combined current from 20 cells. Each pattern
has eight wells for compound addition that are independently controlled
pneumatically. Each pattern has an IN well which was loaded with cells
suspended in ECS. Before the experiment, the plate was “preprimed”
for 2 min. During the preprime step, the IN well was filled with ECS.
The trap wells were filled with ICS, and the compound wells had compound
solutions. After the preprime step, the IN well was filled with cells
suspended in ECS. The experiment consisted of four phases: prime,
trap, break, and data acquisition. The timeline and pressure settings
for the four phases are provided in the Supporting
Information (Figure S2). In the trap phase, the fluid in the
main channel flowed in pulses (no flow for 4.2 s, followed by fluid
flowing for 0.8 s), which allowed cells to be trapped. The trapped
cells were perforated using a rectangular pressure pulse of 4 psi
amplitude for 10 s during the break phase. During the data acquisition
phase, the main channel and the trap pressures were constant at 0.16
psi and 6 mmHg, respectively. The voltage for data acquisition was
set at −70 mV, and the sampling rate was 500 Hz. The data was
collected in frames that lasted 30 s followed by a 0.3 s period when
no data was collected.
Detergent Exposure after Patching
Once the cells were
trapped, they were exposed to ECS for 65 s, following which they are
exposed to detergents at different concentrations. Cells were exposed
to SDS and CTAB for 900 s and exposed again to ECS for 120 s. Cells
were treated with ORB for 600 s and treated with ECS again for 120
s. A schematic of the experimental protocol is provided in the Supporting Information (Figure S2).
Data Analysis
The current vs time trace
files were
exported and processed using Microsoft Excel and MATLAB. The change
in membrane current upon exposure to the detergents for different
lengths of time was calculated. The time averages of current from
7.2 to 11.2 s after exposure (72.6–76.6 s) and from 931 to
935 s after exposure (991.6–995.6 s) were subtracted with the
time average of current just before detergent exposure (60.6–64.6
s). For cells exposed to ORB, the time average current 10 min after
exposure (666.6–670.6 s) was subtracted from the time average
current immediately before exposure (60.6–64.6 s). One-way
analysis of variance (ANOVA) followed by Tukey’s multicomparison
test was performed to determine the statistical significance of the
difference in current changes across different treatments.
Quiescent Experiments Using Cells Pretreated with Detergent
Partitioning assays have been widely used to measure the lipid
bilayer composition and partition constant of detergents in the bilayer.[1−4,11−13,33−37] In this experiment, different numbers of HEK 293A cells were pretreated
with detergent followed by whole cell patch clamp measurements to
evaluate the detergent partitioning into the membrane as a function
of lipid concentration.A fixed number of cells (e.g., 5 million
cells) were suspended in ECS and incubated with various concentrations
of detergents for 15 min. The suspension was then centrifuged at 1000
rpm. The cells were resuspended in ECS and patched using the IonFlux
16. The current vs time trace files were exported, and the time averaged
current from the first 4 min was used as a measure of membrane permeability.
This process was repeated for four different cell counts (1.5 million,
5 million, 10 million, and 15 million cells).For CTAB alone,
the partitioning behavior was also probed using
a trypan blue assay. Trypan blue is a dye that is excluded from cells
when the cell membrane is not compromised. In this experiment, cells
were pretreated with CTAB as described above but trypan blue assay
was used as a membrane permeability marker instead of a whole cell
patch clamp.
Experimental Design and Data Analysis
In order to compare
membrane perturbation induced by SDS, CTAB, and ORB at thermodynamic
stage I and determine partition coefficients, the change in membrane
behavior was generally measured at the onset of perturbation.[12,33] This approach was also taken because the plateau reached after substantial
exposure can be the result of differing physical states including
complete cell solubilization (SDS) or saturation of the cell plasma
membrane with detergent (CTAB, ORB). Figure S4 (Supporting Information) provides an example of this behavior
and method of calculation for the trypan blue assay for CTAB.For the whole cell patch clamp study, it was difficult to identify
the point of onset of increase in current due to the variability in
the patch quality of cells. Hence, we used the following three-step
method to estimate the detergent concentrations required for the onset
of increased permeability (Figure S5, Supporting
Information) and calculate partition constants:The rate of increase
in current from
control levels until a current level of ∼50 nA was measured
(Figure S5, Supporting Information). The
inverse of this slope provides us with a measure of the amount of
detergent necessary to increase the current by 1 nA.Upon examination of multiple data
sets, current changes of ∼15 nA were determined to represent
a reliable magnitude of change to indicate an detergent-induced current
increase. The detergent necessary to increase the current by 1 nA
was multiplied by 15 to obtain an estimate for detergent necessary
to induce membrane currents of 15 nA.The detergent concentrations at the
onset of increased membrane permeability were then plotted with respect
to the lipid concentration and fit with a linear model. The lipid
concentration in cells was estimated from the literature to be 109 lipid molecules per cell membrane.[10] The slope and intercept of this line were Rb and Dw, respectively. The partition
constant K was calculated using eq 6.In step 1, a current level of 50 nA was used to calculate
the slope
because the cells treated using SDS, CTAB, and ORB are in a comparable
physical state corresponding to thermodynamic stages I and II of the
partition model. Higher current levels represent the current after
cells have been solubilized by SDS. At a current level of 50 nA, the
cells were not solubilized when visualized using PKH26 and ORB and
gave a cell count that did not differ from the control.
XTT Assay
XTT kits from Sigma-Aldrich were used for
this experiment. HEK293A cells were plated in a 96-well tissue culture
plate at a density of 100000 cells per well and incubated overnight
at 37 °C and 5% CO2. Cells were incubated with SDS,
CTAB, ORB, or ECS for 20 min. The supernatant was then removed, and
50 μL of PBS was added to each well. 50 parts of solution A
was mixed with 1 part of solution B to prepare the XTT reagent. A
30 μL portion of this reagent was added to each well and incubated
at 37 °C and 5% CO2 for 2 h. The absorbance of the
well was then measured at 490 and 690 nm, and the difference in absorbance
between the two wavelengths was calculated. A large difference would
indicate more viable cells. The percent viability was then calculated
with respect to cells treated with ECS.
Results
The critical micelle concentrations (CMCs) of SDS and CTAB in ECS
were determined to be 0.8–1 and 0.03–0.06 mM, respectively.
The CMC values in water were also obtained giving values of 6–8
and 1–2 mM, respectively, consistent with the published data
in the literature.[38] Line drawings of the
detergent structures are provided in Figure S3 (Supporting Information).The change in current as a
function of time measured for patched
cells exposed to 0.004–2 mM SDS is presented in Figure 2. Each trace is the total current measured across
20 cells. Cells exposed to 0.2 mM SDS (number of traces, n = 11) and 2 mM SDS (n = 8) exhibited an initial
sharp increase in current when compared to the ECS controls. On average,
the current increase started between 2–3 and 1 s, respectively,
for cells treated with 0.2 and 2 mM SDS. For cells treated with 0.2
mM SDS, the initial change in current lasted 3–4 s. The current
then increased slowly for the next 67 ± 25 s. This was followed
by a faster increase in current, which reached ∼50 nA at the
end of 15 min. The currents for cells exposed to 2 mM SDS eventually
reached open channel current levels. Except for one trace that took
871 s after exposure to reach open channel current level, other traces
reached open channel current in 120 ± 61 s.
Figure 2
(A) Exposure of HEK293A
cells to 0.004 and 0.04 mM SDS does not
result in an increase in conductivity when compared to the ECS controls.
Exposure to 0.2 and 2 mM SDS caused a large and sudden increase in
conductivity within 1–3 s. The CMC of SDS is ∼0.8 mM.
Thus, SDS causes increased cell permeability even below the CMC. (B)
The differences between current before exposure to detergents, 7–11
s after detergent release and 931–935 s after detergent release,
were calculated. One-way ANOVA combined with Tukey test indicates
that the current changes caused by 0.2 and 2 mM SDS are significantly
different from the current changes caused by ECS, 0.04 mM SDS, and
0.004 mM SDS. (C) Fluorescent image of HEK293A cell exposed to 0.04
mM SDS shows intact cells. This is consistent with the absence of
an increase in current. (D) Cells treated with 0.2 mM SDS are still
intact after exposure for 10 min. This implies that the observed increase
in current is due to the increased permeability of the membrane. (E)
Cells treated with 2 mM SDS are not present in the trap region. This
is consistent with current levels similar to open channel current
levels. (F) Cells treated with just the ECS are intact after 10 min.
(A) Exposure of HEK293A
cells to 0.004 and 0.04 mM SDS does not
result in an increase in conductivity when compared to the ECS controls.
Exposure to 0.2 and 2 mM SDS caused a large and sudden increase in
conductivity within 1–3 s. The CMC of SDS is ∼0.8 mM.
Thus, SDS causes increased cell permeability even below the CMC. (B)
The differences between current before exposure to detergents, 7–11
s after detergent release and 931–935 s after detergent release,
were calculated. One-way ANOVA combined with Tukey test indicates
that the current changes caused by 0.2 and 2 mM SDS are significantly
different from the current changes caused by ECS, 0.04 mM SDS, and
0.004 mM SDS. (C) Fluorescent image of HEK293A cell exposed to 0.04
mM SDS shows intact cells. This is consistent with the absence of
an increase in current. (D) Cells treated with 0.2 mM SDS are still
intact after exposure for 10 min. This implies that the observed increase
in current is due to the increased permeability of the membrane. (E)
Cells treated with 2 mM SDS are not present in the trap region. This
is consistent with current levels similar to open channel current
levels. (F) Cells treated with just the ECS are intact after 10 min.The differences between the pre-exposure
current and the currents
at 7.2–11.2 and 931–935 s after exposure are presented
in Figure 2B. One-way analysis of variance
indicated the change in current in the first 7.2–11.2 s after
compound release was significantly different between the treatments
(p < 0.001). Tukey’s multiple comparison
analysis indicated that the current increases caused by 0.2 and 2
mM SDS were significantly different from the control and from each
other (α = 0.05). Similarly, the mean change in current 931–935
s after exposure to detergents was significantly different for the
different treatments (p < 0.001).The change
in current as a function of time measured for patched
cells exposed to 0.001–10 mM CTAB is presented in Figure 3. The introduction of CTAB at 0.0001 mM (n = 4) and 0.001 mM (n = 4) did not cause
a change in conductance as compared to the controls. The introduction
of CTAB at 0.01 mM (n = 8), which is still below
the CMC, caused a slow increase in current that eventually reached
∼1/3 of the open channel current. The exposure of cells to
CTAB at 0.1 mM (n = 10), 1 mM (n = 12), and 10 mM (n = 4) caused a rapid increase
in membrane current that reached a steady state between −40
and −70 nA. The times of onset for the change in current after
compound release were 2–3 s for 0.1 mM CTAB and 1 s for both
1 and 10 mM CTAB.
Figure 3
(A) Exposure of HEK293A cells to ECS and 0.0001 and 0.001
mM CTAB
did not result in an increase in conductivity. Exposure to 0.01 mM
CTAB caused a delayed increase in conductivity. The exposure of cells
to 0.1 mM CTAB causes a large and sudden increase in conductivity
within 1–3 s after exposure. The CMC of CTAB is ∼0.06
mM. Thus, CTAB caused increased cell permeability even below the CMC.
(B) The differences between current before exposure to detergents,
7–11 s after detergent release and 931–935 s after detergent
release, were calculated. One-way ANOVA combined with Tukey test indicates
that the current changes caused by 0.01–10 mM CTAB are significantly
different from the current changes caused by ECS, 0.0001 mM CTAB,
and 0.001 mM CTAB. (C, D) Fluorescent images of HEK293A cells treated
with 0.001 and 0.01 mM CTAB show that the cells are intact. This is
consistent with the absence of an increase in current. (E–G)
Cells treated with 0.1, 1, and 10 mM CTAB are still intact after exposure
for 10 min. This implies that the observed increase in current is
due to the increased permeability of the membrane. (H) Cells treated
with just ECS are intact after 10 min.
(A) Exposure of HEK293A cells to ECS and 0.0001 and 0.001
mM CTAB
did not result in an increase in conductivity. Exposure to 0.01 mM
CTAB caused a delayed increase in conductivity. The exposure of cells
to 0.1 mM CTAB causes a large and sudden increase in conductivity
within 1–3 s after exposure. The CMC of CTAB is ∼0.06
mM. Thus, CTAB caused increased cell permeability even below the CMC.
(B) The differences between current before exposure to detergents,
7–11 s after detergent release and 931–935 s after detergent
release, were calculated. One-way ANOVA combined with Tukey test indicates
that the current changes caused by 0.01–10 mM CTAB are significantly
different from the current changes caused by ECS, 0.0001 mM CTAB,
and 0.001 mM CTAB. (C, D) Fluorescent images of HEK293A cells treated
with 0.001 and 0.01 mM CTAB show that the cells are intact. This is
consistent with the absence of an increase in current. (E–G)
Cells treated with 0.1, 1, and 10 mM CTAB are still intact after exposure
for 10 min. This implies that the observed increase in current is
due to the increased permeability of the membrane. (H) Cells treated
with just ECS are intact after 10 min.ANOVA indicated that the mean current increases at 7.2–11.2
and 931–935 s after detergent exposure between all the treatments
were significantly different (p < 10–5). At the 7.2–11.2 s time point, Tukey’s multiple comparison
test indicates that the current changes produced by 0.1, 1, and 10
mM CTAB were significantly different from the ECS controls, 0.0001
and 0.001 mM CTAB (α = 0.05). At the 931–935 s time point,
the current increases produced by 0.01, 0.1, 1, and 10 mM CTAB were
significantly different from the ECS controls, 0.0001 and 0.001 mM
CTAB (α = 0.05). Unlike SDS, a CTAB concentration as much as
200 times higher than the CMC did not result in open channel current
levels.The exposure of cells to detergents caused significant
changes
in the membrane currents observed by a whole cell patch clamp. The
currents in some traps treated with 2 mM SDS reached open channel
levels; however, currents in traps treated with 0.2 mM SDS and 0.1,
1, and 10 mM CTAB remained steady at approximately half the open channel
levels. These steady state current levels could be either due to 20
intact but leaky cells or a mixture of intact cells and dissolved
cells, leading to open channels in some fraction of the 20 trapping
sites per zone. Fluorescence microscopy was employed to distinguish
between these two possibilities. In order to determine if cells were
intact after treatment with the various concentrations of SDS and
CTAB in the microfluidic plates, we stained cells with PKH26. PKH26
is a dye that localizes to the cell membrane. The cells were then
patched and treated with detergents, as described in the previous
section. Figures 2C–F and 3C–H show the fluorescent images of cells stained with
PKH26 after treatment with detergents for 15 min. Cells treated with
ECS, 0.04 mM SDS, and 0.001 mM CTAB were intact, as indicated by their
fluorescent perimeter. This is consistent with the observation that
cells do not display an increase in permeability when treated with
detergents at these concentrations. Cells treated with 0.2 mM SDS
and 0.1–10 mM CTAB were also intact even though they display
substantially increased membrane currents. The patterns treated with
2 mM SDS do not show any intact cells, consistent with the measured
open channel current levels.As an alternative approach to employing
PKH26, we also employed
octadecyl rhodamine B (ORB), a positively charged, amphiphilic, fluorescent
detergent. This approach provided the opportunity to explore the relationship
between intercalation and current increase at the lowest concentration
exposures. The change in current as a function of time measured for
patched cells exposed to 0.035–1.4 mM ORB is presented in Figure 4. ORB at 0.035, 0.14, and 1.4 mM increased the membrane
current significantly when compared with the controls. Current induced
by 0.014 mM ORB is significantly different from the ECS control but
not 0.007 mM ORB. Fluorescence microscopy images (Figure 4C–F) reveal that the cells are fluorescent
and intact after exposure to ORB at all three concentrations for 10
min.
Figure 4
(A) Exposure of HEK293A to 0.035–1.4 mM ORB results in an
increase in conductivity within 2–50 s that is not seen in
the 5% DMSO and ECS controls. (B) The differences between current
before exposure to detergents and 931–935 s after detergent
release were calculated. One-way ANOVA combined with Tukey test indicates
that the current changes caused by 0.035, 0.14, and 1.4 mM ORB are
significantly different from the current changes caused by ECS, 0.007
mM ORB, and 0.014 mM ORB. Current induced by 0.014 mM ORB is significantly
different from ECS control but not 0.007 mM ORB. (C) The fluorescent
image of HEK293A cells treated with 1.37 mM ORB indicates that cells
are intact after 10 min of exposure even though they exhibit a change
in conductivity. (D) Cells treated with 0.137 mM ORB are still intact
after exposure for 10 min. This implies that the observed increase
in current for the 0.137 mM ORB is due to the increased permeability
of the membrane. (E) Cells treated with 0.0137 mM ORB are fluorescent
but do not exhibit a change in membrane conductivity (F). Bright field
image of cells treated with just 5% DMSO in ECS that are intact after
10 min.
(A) Exposure of HEK293A to 0.035–1.4 mM ORB results in an
increase in conductivity within 2–50 s that is not seen in
the 5% DMSO and ECS controls. (B) The differences between current
before exposure to detergents and 931–935 s after detergent
release were calculated. One-way ANOVA combined with Tukey test indicates
that the current changes caused by 0.035, 0.14, and 1.4 mM ORB are
significantly different from the current changes caused by ECS, 0.007
mM ORB, and 0.014 mM ORB. Current induced by 0.014 mM ORB is significantly
different from ECS control but not 0.007 mM ORB. (C) The fluorescent
image of HEK293A cells treated with 1.37 mM ORB indicates that cells
are intact after 10 min of exposure even though they exhibit a change
in conductivity. (D) Cells treated with 0.137 mM ORB are still intact
after exposure for 10 min. This implies that the observed increase
in current for the 0.137 mM ORB is due to the increased permeability
of the membrane. (E) Cells treated with 0.0137 mM ORB are fluorescent
but do not exhibit a change in membrane conductivity (F). Bright field
image of cells treated with just 5% DMSO in ECS that are intact after
10 min.Figure 5 presents the current induced after
cells are exposed to SDS, CTAB, and ORB for 900 s. SDS and ORB induce
increased membrane permeability at 0.2 and 0.14 mM, respectively,
while CTAB induces membrane permeability at 0.01 mM. CTAB induces
permeability at concentrations 20 times less than SDS and 14 times
less than ORB. The relative activity of SDS:CTAB:ORB is thus 1:20:14
as measured by this method.
Figure 5
Figure showing the change in current 900 s after
exposure to SDS,
CTAB, and ORB dissolved in ECS. SDS and ORB induce increased membrane
permeability at 0.2 mM, respectively, while CTAB and ORB induce membrane
permeability at 0.01 and 0.014 mM, respectively. CTAB induces permeability
at concentrations 20 times less than SDS and 14 times less than ORB.
The relative activity of SDS:CTAB:ORB is thus 1:20:14 as measured
by this method.
Figure showing the change in current 900 s after
exposure to SDS,
CTAB, and ORB dissolved in ECS. SDS and ORB induce increased membrane
permeability at 0.2 mM, respectively, while CTAB and ORB induce membrane
permeability at 0.01 and 0.014 mM, respectively. CTAB induces permeability
at concentrations 20 times less than SDS and 14 times less than ORB.
The relative activity of SDS:CTAB:ORB is thus 1:20:14 as measured
by this method.The metabolic activity
of cells exposed to SDS, CTAB, and ORB as
measured by the XTT assay is presented in Figure 6. Cells exposed to 0.004–0.2 mM SDS, 0.001–0.1
mM CTAB, and 0.0137–0.137 mM ORB do not show a loss in metabolic
activity. Cells exposed to 2 mM SDS, 1 and 10 mM CTAB, and 1.37 mM
ORB show reduced metabolic activity.
Figure 6
Figure showing the percent of metabolically
active cells after
exposure to SDS, CTAB, and ORB dissolved in ECS compared to cells
exposed to ECS alone. All three compounds cause reduced cell viability
at concentrations greater than 1 mM.
Figure showing the percent of metabolically
active cells after
exposure to SDS, CTAB, and ORB dissolved in ECS compared to cells
exposed to ECS alone. All three compounds cause reduced cell viability
at concentrations greater than 1 mM.Detergents can increase membrane permeability either by removing
lipids from the membrane or by forming stable pores in the membrane.
In order to further probe the reversibility of the current induction
in the plasma membrane, we exposed cells to detergents at sub-solubilization
concentrations for 10, 30, or 300 s followed by ECS for 900 s (Figure 7). Cells were exposed to 0.2 mM SDS, 0.1 mM CTAB,
and 0.137 mM ORB. The exposure of cells to SDS, CTAB, and ORB for
10 s is sufficient to cause increased membrane permeability. The increased
permeability induced within 10 s is not reversible, even 15 min after
exposure for all three materials. This result is once again consistent
with the hypothesis that the increased permeability is caused by the
intercalation of detergents in the cell membrane.
Figure 7
(A) The increased conductivity
induced in HEK293 A by 0.2 mM SDS
after 30 s of exposure is not reversed at the end of the experiment
(600 s). (B) The increased conductivity induced in HEK293 A by 0.1
mM CTAB after 10 s of exposure is not reversed at the end of the experiment
(600 s). (C) The increased conductivity induced in HEK293 A by 0.137
mM ORB after 10 s of exposure is not reversed at the end of the experiment
(600 s). (D) Exemplar figure showing current traces of cells exposed
to ORB for 10 s in comparison to control current traces from cells
exposed to only ECS or ECS + 5% DMSO. The dotted lines marked with
the double arrow indicated the time when cells were exposed to ORB.
(A) The increased conductivity
induced in HEK293 A by 0.2 mM SDS
after 30 s of exposure is not reversed at the end of the experiment
(600 s). (B) The increased conductivity induced in HEK293 A by 0.1
mM CTAB after 10 s of exposure is not reversed at the end of the experiment
(600 s). (C) The increased conductivity induced in HEK293 A by 0.137
mM ORB after 10 s of exposure is not reversed at the end of the experiment
(600 s). (D) Exemplar figure showing current traces of cells exposed
to ORB for 10 s in comparison to control current traces from cells
exposed to only ECS or ECS + 5% DMSO. The dotted lines marked with
the double arrow indicated the time when cells were exposed to ORB.The experiments discussed so far
have all been for detergent exposure
under superfusion conditions. The vast majority of experiments in
the literature have examined detergent exposure under quiescent conditions.[11−13,33−37] In order to compare our superfusion-based data to
quiescent data, we treated cells with varying amounts of detergent
and then patched the cells to make the current measurements (Figure 8). The amount of detergent necessary to induce membrane
conductivity increased with the cell number. Cells treated with the
highest concentrations of SDS reached the open channel current plateau
of the IonFlux 16 instrument, since the cells were fully solubilized.
Cells exposed to CTAB and ORB remained intact even at the highest
concentrations, and their current plateaus arise from detergent saturation
of plasma membrane.
Figure 8
Increasing numbers of HEK 293 A cells require increasing
concentrations
of (A) SDS, (B) CTAB, and (C) ORB to induce the same amount of conductivity.
Increasing numbers of HEK 293 A cells require increasing
concentrations
of (A) SDS, (B) CTAB, and (C) ORB to induce the same amount of conductivity.The detergent concentrations at
the onset of increased membrane
permeability were calculated, plotted with respect to the lipid concentration,
and fit using a linear model (Figure 9). The
values of Rb and K were
calculated as in eq 5 (Table 1). The ratio of detergent to lipid in the bilayer at the onset
of increased permeability was 2.0 for SDS, 0.3 for CTAB, and 0.4 for
ORB. The partition constants (K) for SDS, CTAB, and
ORB are 23000, 55000, and 39000 M–1, respectively.
The partition constant of CTAB measured using the trypan blue assay
is 48000 M–1.
Figure 9
Detergent concentrations at the onset
of increased permeability
in current increase with increasing cell count and then further fit
with a line.
Table 1
Rb and K Values for SDS, CTAB,
and ORB
material
line equation
R2
Rb ± standard error
Dw ± standard error
K (average) [lower bound, upper bound]
SDS
2 X + 28.7
0.96
2 ± 0.4
29 ± 10
23000, [16300, 39200]
CTAB
0.3 X + 4.2
0.79
0.3 ± 0.1
4.2 ± 2.8
55000, [29000, 476000]
ORB
0.4 X + 7.3
0.87
0.4 ± 0.1
7.3 ± 3.1
39000, [24000, 99000]
Detergent concentrations at the onset
of increased permeability
in current increase with increasing cell count and then further fit
with a line.The error associated
with the estimates of Rb and the intercept
obtained using linear regression of the
data in Figure 9 can be used to estimate the
error in K (full details provided in Supporting Information). Employing the error
in Rb and the intercept, a range of values
for the partition constant (K) for SDS [16300-39200],
CTAB [29000-476000], and ORB [24000-99000] were obtained.
The partition constant of CTAB measured using the trypan blue assay
ranged from 37000 to 67000 M–1. Ranges are provided
rather than the standard deviation because K is not
a linear function of R and the mean estimate of K calculated from R and Dw is not the midpoint of the distribution of K. Literature values for K for liposomes and erythrocytes
reported to date gave no error term.[12,33]
Discussion
The changes in transmembrane currents observed in cells treated
with different concentrations of SDS can be categorized into three
groups (numbered 1–3 in Figure 2A):
(1) traces that show no change in membrane conductivity compared to
controls; (2) traces that show a rapid change in conductivity within
2 s of exposure to detergents and then reach a steady state current
that is less than the open channel current, and (3) traces that show
a rapid increase in current that reaches open channel levels over
a few minutes. Traces from cells exposed to 2 mM SDS are in group
3. Visualization of these patch sites for PKH 26 stained cells indicates
complete solubilization of cells (Figure 2E).
By way of contrast, CTAB did not solubilize cells even at 200 times
the CMC. Current traces of cells exposed to 0.2 mM SDS and 0.1–10
mM CTAB fall into group 2, and PKH26 stained cells are readily visible
in the patch sites (Figure 3). Current traces
from cells exposed to ECS, 0.004–0.04 mM SDS, and 0.0001–0.001
mM CTAB belong to group 1 and also exhibit readily visualized PKH26
stained cells. Cells treated with 0.01 mM CTAB exhibited behavior
midway between groups I and II with both a slower rate of current
increase and final current values that did not reach the saturation
limit.In group 2, all 20 PKH26 stained cells in a trap were
intact after
exposure to detergents for 10 min. Thus, the steady state current
is not caused by the incomplete solubilization of cells causing some
fraction of the trapping sites to exhibit open channel current values.
This observation is consistent with the hypothesis that the increased
membrane permeability is caused by detergent intercalation in the
membrane. This hypothesis is further supported by the fact that ORB,
which is known to localize in the membrane, also induces increased
membrane permeability (Figure 4).It
has been suggested that detergent micelles are required for
the solubilization of lipid membranes,[9] or that solubilization occurs near the CMC.[5,16] Evidence
has also been presented that micelles are not necessary for solubilization.[32] In our experiments, SDS solubilized cells above
the CMC. By way of contrast, CTAB does not solubilize cells even at
concentrations 200 times above the CMC. Thus, the presence of detergent
micelles alone is not a sufficient criterion for the complete solubilization
of cell membranes. Moreover, the effect of 0.2 mM SDS (below the CMC)
on membrane current and cell viability is similar to the effect of
0.1 mM CTAB (above the CMC) in spite of the different aggregation
states. This suggests that the aggregation state of free detergent
in solution does not influence membrane solubilization. Rather, our
cell-level studies agree with the physical chemical studies of Seelig
et al.[31] and Xia and Onyuksel[32] on lipid bilayer models that it is the degree
of incorporation into the membrane, headgroup shape, and charge of
the detergent that determine the efficiency of cell membrane solubilization
by detergents. This process may also be affected by the cycling of
lipid from the membrane within the cell. From our study, it is seen
that the detergent partitioning occurs in the scale of a few seconds
as compared to the several minutes needed for lipid recycling.Several models have been proposed for the perturbation of lipid
membranes by detergents. Detergents can increase conductivity by intercalating
in the membrane and disrupting normal lipid packing, forming stable
detergent lined pores, or forming lipid-lined pores due to the formation
of mixed micelles. In our whole cell patch clamp experiments under
superfusion conditions, the increased membrane conductivity induced
by these detergents is not reversible. The fact that the pores induced
by SDS, CTAB, and ORB are not reversible over 15 min indicates the
detergent is intercalated in the membrane and/or stabilizing any pores
formed. The detergent could be intercalated in the membrane and cause
membrane bending or thinning, as in a carpet model,[40] or it could form stable detergent-lined pores, as has been
reported for barrel-stave[41,42] and toroidal pore models.[43,44] The data reported here cannot distinguish between these two possibilities,
in part because the amplifier response is averaged over 20 patched
cells. This prevents clear resolution of single pore formation and
the type of comparison we could make with X-ray structural data when
performing single cell patch clamp studies.[19,45] By way of comparison, apparently unstabilized and detergent-free,
pores formed by sonoporation are reversible over 5–20 s[46] and unstabilized pores in giant unilamellar
vesicles close in about 100 ms.[47] One possible
factor that could confound the IonFlux 16 reversibility experiment
is the adsorption of detergent in the walls of the microfluidic channel
during the 10–300 s of exposure and subsequent release when
cells are exposed to ECS alone (Figure 7D).
To address this concern, we modeled the exponential release of detergent
from a monolayer adsorbed in the channel wall between the compound
release site and trap site where cells are located. Results presented
in Figure S6 (Supporting Information) show
that the cells are exposed to concentrations much lower than the concentrations
necessary to induce membrane permeability.The results in Table 1 show that the ratio
of detergent to lipid in the bilayer at the onset of increased membrane
permeability is 7 and 5 times greater for SDS when compared to CTAB
and ORB, respectively. The partition constant for SDS in POPC and
POPC/POPG vesicles has been determined by Beck and Seelig et al. to
be 33000 and 37000 M–1, respectively.[31] Another study by Tan and Seelig et al. reported
the partition constant of SDS in POPC and POPC/POPG small and large
unilamellar vesicles to range from 12500 to 70000 M–1 depending on the size and composition of the vesicles as well as
the temperature.[37] Our observation of 23000
M–1 is thus within the range predicted from studies
of vesicle models. Beck and Seelig et al. also report a K value of 350000 M–1 for CTAB in POPC vesicles.
Our partition constants of 55000 M–1 (patch clamp)
and 48000 M–1 (trypan blue) measured for HEK 293A
cells are substantially smaller and differ substantially from the
value determined using a vesicle model.During the estimation
of partition constants for charged detergents
into well-defined lipid systems such as liposomes, the electrostatic
interaction of the detergent with the membrane is also taken into
account. This is because the concentration of a charged detergent
near the surface of the charged cell membrane need not be equal to
the bulk detergent concentration in the aqueous phase.[4,31,37] The local concentration of the
SDS, CTAB, and ORB near the membrane surface is affected by the membrane
surface charge density, buffer composition, etc.[4,31,37] Thus, K is a function of Rb, Dw, and the surface
potential (ψ0), as described by eq 3. The overall partition constant K is related
to the partition constant that accounts for electrostatic interactions
as described by eq 3.[4,31,37] In eq 7, z is the charge of the detergent headgroup, F0 is Faraday’s constant, R is the gas
constant, T is the temperature, and ψ0 is the membrane surface potential.In our experiment, the membrane surface potential
of cells was not readily available, since it could be affected by
a number of biological factors such as the presence of additional
proteins, sugar moieties on the surface, the physiological state of
the cell, etc. In addition, the lipid membrane is cycled through the
cell and it is unclear how the surface potential would be affected
by that process. Hence, the binding constants calculated in this work
are overall binding constants that do not take into account electrostatic
interactions.On the basis of the XTT assay, the detergent treated
cells in group
2 can be further differentiated as cells with increased membrane currents
that do not exhibit reduced metabolic activity (2a) and cells with
increased membrane current that show decreased metabolic activity
(2b). Group 2a is represented by cells exposed to 0.2 mM SDS and 0.1
mM CTAB, while 2b consists of cells exposed to 1 and 10 mM CTAB. Thus,
at least at certain concentrations, detergents increase membrane permeability
to ion flow without reducing metabolic activity and without damaging,
to the limit of our optical resolution, the structure of the cell.
Moreover, the cells treated with 0.137 mM ORB are fluorescent, show
increased membrane currents, and are metabolically active. This shows
that an amphiphilic molecule with a charged headgroup can intercalate
in cell membranes and cause increased membrane conductivity but not
reduce the metabolic activity of the cells.
Conclusion
Detergents
increased the transmembrane conductivity of cells very
rapidly, on the order of a few seconds. SDS and CTAB increased the
membrane conductivity of cells even when their bulk concentration
was below the CMC. The experiments support previous conclusions that
detergent headgroup charge and shape affect cell membrane solubilization.
Fluorescence microscopy images indicated that cells with increased
conductivity were intact. Patch clamp experiments combined with microscopy
also showed that ORB both intercalates in the membrane and increases
membrane conductivity significantly. The increased membrane conductivity
induced by detergents at sub-solubilizing concentrations does not
decrease once compound exposure is stopped. These results suggest
intercalated detergent remains in the plasma membrane for at least
15 min. Moreover, our studies provide partition constants for SDS,
CTAB, and ORB in non-erythrocytic mammalian cell membranes.
Authors: Paulo S C Preté; Cleyton C Domingues; Nilce C Meirelles; Sônia V P Malheiros; Félix M Goñi; Eneida de Paula; Shirley Schreier Journal: Biochim Biophys Acta Date: 2010-10-29
Authors: Jiumei Chen; Jessica A Hessler; Krishna Putchakayala; Brian K Panama; Damian P Khan; Seungpyo Hong; Douglas G Mullen; Stassi C Dimaggio; Abhigyan Som; Gregory N Tew; Anatoli N Lopatin; James R Baker; Mark M Banaszak Holl; Bradford G Orr Journal: J Phys Chem B Date: 2009-08-13 Impact factor: 2.991
Authors: Sandhra M Carvalho; Herman S Mansur; Fábio P Ramanery; Alexandra A P Mansur; Zelia I P Lobato; Maria F Leite Journal: Toxicol Res (Camb) Date: 2016-04-14 Impact factor: 3.524
Authors: Sriram Vaidyanathan; Kevin B Anderson; Rachel L Merzel; Binyamin Jacobovitz; Milan P Kaushik; Christina N Kelly; Mallory A van Dongen; Casey A Dougherty; Bradford G Orr; Mark M Banaszak Holl Journal: ACS Nano Date: 2015-05-14 Impact factor: 15.881
Authors: Alexandra A P Mansur; Herman S Mansur; Sandhra M Carvalho; Anderson J Caires Journal: Contrast Media Mol Imaging Date: 2017-11-13 Impact factor: 3.161