Adding small fractions of cholesterol decreases the interfacial viscosity of dipalmitoylphosphatidylcholine (DPPC) monolayers by an order of magnitude per wt %. Grazing incidence X-ray diffraction shows that cholesterol at these small fractions does not mix ideally with DPPC but rather induces nanophase separated structures of an ordered, primarily DPPC phase bordered by a line-active, disordered, mixed DPPC-cholesterol phase. We propose that the free area in the classic Cohen and Turnbull model of viscosity is inversely proportional to the number of molecules in the coherence area, or product of the two coherence lengths. Cholesterol significantly reduces the coherence area of the crystals as well as the interfacial viscosity. Using this free area collapses the surface viscosity data for all surface pressures and cholesterol fractions to a universal logarithmic relation. The extent of molecular coherence appears to be a fundamental factor in determining surface viscosity in ordered monolayers.
Adding small fractions of cholesterol decreases the interfacial viscosity of dipalmitoylphosphatidylcholine (DPPC) monolayers by an order of magnitude per wt %. Grazing incidence X-ray diffraction shows that cholesterol at these small fractions does not mix ideally with DPPC but rather induces nanophase separated structures of an ordered, primarily DPPC phase bordered by a line-active, disordered, mixed DPPC-cholesterol phase. We propose that the free area in the classic Cohen and Turnbull model of viscosity is inversely proportional to the number of molecules in the coherence area, or product of the two coherence lengths. Cholesterol significantly reduces the coherence area of the crystals as well as the interfacial viscosity. Using this free area collapses the surface viscosity data for all surface pressures and cholesterol fractions to a universal logarithmic relation. The extent of molecular coherence appears to be a fundamental factor in determining surface viscosity in ordered monolayers.
Despite its ubiquity
in cell membranes, there is little quantitative
information on the effects of small mole fractions of cholesterol
on the phase diagrams, molecular organization, and surface viscosity
of mixtures of phospholipids and cholesterol.[1,2] Understanding
cholesterol’s effects in altering the local molecular organization
and rheology of lipid monolayers may give clues to the mechanisms
that stabilize nanometer-scale “rafts” in complex lipid-cholesterol
mixtures; the raft hypothesis has emerged in recent years as a general
organizing principle for the structure of eukaryotic cell membranes.[3−6] Rafts are hypothesized to result from nanometer-scale phase separation
of ordered and viscous domains in which cholesterol, saturated lipids,
and membrane proteins preferentially accumulate, surrounded by a sea
of less viscous, unsaturated lipids with greater protein diffusivity.[3−6] However, the fundamental physics underlying raft formation is still
being developed, especially how interactions between saturated phospholipids
and cholesterol determine membrane phase behavior, viscosity and diffusivity.[4]The interactions of cholesterol and saturated
phospholipids also
play an important, but poorly understood, role in the properties of
human lung surfactant (LS), a lipid-protein monolayer necessary to
reduce the surface tension in the lung alveoli.[7] At present, even the existence of cholesterol in native
LS is questioned, as the lung lavage required to harvest LS inevitably
causes blood and cell debris to be coextracted, potentially contaminating
LS with cholesterol. This lack of consensus is reflected in the composition
of replacement lung surfactants, which are used to treat neonatal
respiratory distress syndrome (NRDS), which occurs in 20 000–30 000
premature infants each year in the U.S.[7,8] Survanta and
Curosurf, two clinically approved animal extract replacement surfactants
for treatment of NRDS, have all cholesterol removed after harvesting.
Infasurf, the third clinically approved surfactant, retains 4-5 wt
% cholesterol.[9] Resolving this controversy
is difficult, as there is little information on the effects of small
cholesterol fractions on the organization and dynamics of phospholipid
monolayers. Our previous work has shown that the surface viscosity
of dipalmitoylphosphatidylcholine (DPPC) monolayers decreases by an
order of magnitude per wt % cholesterol,[10] up to about 3 wt %, suggesting that the cholesterol-containing Infasurf
would have significantly different monolayer dynamics than cholesterol-free
Survanta and Curosurf. Interfacial viscosity is believed to have a
significant effect on monolayer collapse,[11] surfactant spreading during breathing, and transport from the type
II epithelial cells, where surfactant is produced, to the alveolar
air–water interface.[8] Interfacial
viscosity may also be important during the instillation of replacement
surfactant and the reopening of bronchial airways.[12] However, the origin of this dramatic effect of cholesterol
on DPPC viscosity is not yet known.Cholesterol may also play
a role in lung surfactant inactivation
in acute lung injury (ALI) and acute respiratory distress syndrome
(ARDS). ARDS occurs as a rapid onset of respiratory failure[13−15] and affects about 150 000 people per year in the U.S. with
a mortality rate of 30–40%.[16] The
pathogenesis of ARDS is not fully understood, but in both ALI and
ARDS, surfactant is “inactivated” by some primary pathogenesis
such as lung inflammation, trauma, pulmonary infection, near-drowning,
etc.[15] The cholesterol content of ARDS
patients shows an increase in cholesterol content[17,18] and in vitro, cholesterol levels greater than 10 mol % increase
the minimum surface tension at monolayer collapse, which may exacerbate
lung damage.Grazing incidence X-ray diffraction (GIXD) shows
that up to 7 mol
% added cholesterol does not change the basic alkane packing of DPPC,
but does decrease the extent of ordering, or coherence area, suggesting
an increased number of lattice defects. We postulate that the free
area available for diffusive transport in a two-dimensional analog
of the classic Cohen and Turnbull free volume model of viscosity[19] is inversely proportional to the number of molecules
in a coherence area.[20] Using this relationship,[10,21,22] the surface viscosity data for
all surface pressures and cholesterol fractions collapses to a simple
logarithmic relation with no adjustable parameters. This suggests
that the decreased molecular ordering caused by the incompatibility
of cholesterol with the alkane chain lattice is the origin of the
orders of magnitude decrease in surface viscosity.
Materials and
Methods
Isotherms and Fluorescence Imaging
1,2-Dipalmitoyl-sn-glycero-3-phosphocholine (DPPC, R-enantiomer) and dihydrocholesterol
(Avanti, Alabaster, AL) with 0.1 wt % Texas-Red DHPE (N-(Texas Red sulfonyl)-1,2-dihexadecanoyl-sn-glycero-3-phosphoethanolamine,
Invitrogen, Grand Island, NY) were mixed in the appropriate ratios
and diluted to ∼0.2 mg/mL in HPLC-grade chloroform (Fisher
Scientific, St. Louis, MO) to form a spreading solution. Dihydrocholesterol
(Chol) was used instead of cholesterol to minimize oxidation but has
little impact on phase behavior.[23] Surface
pressure–area isotherms were recorded at 25 °C using a
Teflon trough (NIMA, Coventry, England) with custom designed stainless
steel ribbons which reduce film leakage at high surface pressures.
A filter paper Wilhelmy plate (Riegler and Kirstein, GmbH; Potsdam,
Germany) was used to measure surface pressure. The open area of the
trough used was 125 cm2 and each complete compression/expansion
cycle took about 8 min (0.42 cm2/s). For fluorescence imaging,
the Langmuir trough was mounted on a Nikon Optiphot optical microscope
with a custom designed stage equipped with long working distance objectives
designed for fluorescent light. A dichroic mirror/barrier filter assembly
directed the excitation light onto the monolayer films at a normal
angle of incidence and filtered the emitted light and the images were
detected by a silicon intensified CCD camera. Videos of the monolayer
film were recorded during the compression-expansion cycle directly
onto the computer using the Pinnacle studio capture software. The
continuous, fluid lipid phase appears bright due to the preferential
segregation of the Texas Red dye, while the better ordered domains
exclude the dye molecules and appear dark.[23]
Grazing Incidence X-ray Diffraction (GIXD)
Two-dimensional
GIXD experiments were carried out at the ChemMatCARS station at beamline
15-ID at the Advanced Photon Source, Argonne National Laboratory.[24] DPPC/Chol at the appropriate ratios were dissolved
in chloroform solution at ∼1 mg/mL and spread dropwise onto
the air/deionized water interface in a custom Langmuir trough,[24] which was temperature-controlled at 22° C. After waiting ∼30 min for solvent evaporation,
the monolayers were compressed to the desired surface pressure (20,
30, or 40 mN/m) and annealed for an additional 30 min. The trough
was enclosed in a helium-filled chamber and the oxygen level was constantly
monitored during exposure to the X-ray beam. The analysis of GIXD
data for two-dimensional films at the air-water interface follows
that of Kaganer et al.[25] It is well established
that the Bragg peaks correspond to ordering within the alkane chains
of the lipid tailgroups;[26] the organization
of the headgroups is inferred from changes in the tailgroup lattice
in response to changes in surface pressure and cholesterol fraction.
Interfacial Microrheology
Circular ferromagnetic probes
(microbuttons) of diameter 20 μm, thickness 1 μm, with
“button holes” of diameter 3.5 μm were fabricated
by photolithography. The probes were deposited at the air–water
interface in a custom-built trough with an attached fluorescence microscope.[27] A uniform magnetic field of magnitude, B, and orientation, θ, was generated by the output
of two independent pairs of electromagnets controlled by a custom
LabVIEW code[10,27,28] to exert a controlled torque, L, on a microbutton
of moment m and orientation ϕ. To measure the
frequency-dependent linear viscoelastic response, a sinusoidal magnetic
field was applied to generate a time varying applied torque. The driving
torque was kept small enough that the response was linear. The microbutton
orientation was determined from bright field images of the holes in
the microbuttons as a function of applied torque, to determine the
rotational resistance. From the rotational resistance, the linear
viscoelastic surface moduli were obtained from the solution of the
hydrodynamic problem of a rotating cylinder within a viscoelastic
monolayer atop a viscous subphase.[27,29−31] In terms of measured experimental properties, the surface loss modulus, G″ is the out of phase component of the rotational
resistance, the surface storage modulus, G′,
is in the in-phase component as in conventional 3-D rheology (Figure 6B). The surface viscosity for the Newtonian response
we observed over the frequency range of 0.1–10 Hz is η = G″/ω, or
for the 1 Hz frequency used in Figure 6, η = G″/2π. The
same exponential dependence of surface viscosity on surface pressure
was obtained using a 100 μm probe showing that continuum values
of elasticity and viscosity were being measured. The 100 μm
probe is more than an order of magnitude larger than the domain sizes
we have seen (Figures 5 and 6). Recent results using macroscopic wire rings (10 cm diameter
ring, 0.7 mm diameter wires) showed identical trends with surface
pressure and good agreement for similar monolayers.[32] The maximum surface viscosity that we could measure with
our rheometer was ∼100 μPa·m·s; the surface
viscosity of pure DPPC at 40 mN/m was greater than this and was not
measured.
Figure 6
Fluorescence images of DPPC monolayers with 0.0, 0.2,
and 0.4 mol
% cholesterol at coexistence between the disordered LE (light) and
ordered LC (dark) phases at 10 mN/m. Contrast is due to doping the
monolayer with 0.1 wt % of the fluorescent (N-(Texas
Red sulfonyl)-1,2-dihexadecanoyl-sn-glycero-3-phosphoethanolamine,
(Invitrogen) which segregates to the more fluid LE phase. The domain
width decreases with increasing cholesterol, indicative of a decrease
in line tension. The contrast disappears at higher surface pressures.
Figure 5
Tapping-mode AFM images
of DPPC/cholesterol monolayers transferred
by Langmuir-Blodgett deposition to mica substrates at 20 mN/m. For
0.8 mol % cholesterol, dispersed, circular 10–100 nanodomains
appear (darker gray indicates more compliant relative to the lighter
gray background phase[10]), which preferentially
locate at the boundaries of the light gray domains (arrows). For 3.7
mol % Chol, the circular nanodomains have condensed into linear features
begin to break up the light gray domains, but the light gray domains
remain continuous. For 5.0 mol % Chol the nanodomains make up a cocontinuous
network separating the light gray domains, while decreasing the size
of the light gray domains to 100–200 nm. Figure adapted from
ref (10).
AFM and Langmuir-Blodgett Deposition
Freshly-cleaved
mica substrates (S&J Trading Inc.; Glen Oaks, NY) connected to
a computer-controlled dipping mechanism in a commercial circular NIMA
L-B trough (Biolin Scientific, Inc., Linthicum Heights, MD) were pulled
through the monolayer at 5 mm/min at a constant surface pressure of
20 mN/m. Transfer ratios were determined by recording the interfacial
area change of the trough during transfer and comparing this to the
surface area of the mica substrate. A transfer ratio of 1 means that
these areas are equal; only films with transfer ratios of ∼1
were examined. The mica substrates were glued to stainless steel discs
and affixed to the magnetic holder of an MMAFM-2 AFM (Digital Instruments;
Santa Barbara, CA) with a cantilever tip (Asylum Research, AC160TS;
Santa Barbara, CA) designed for tapping mode operation.
Results
and Discussion
Two-dimensional GIXD was carried out at ChemMatCARS,
Sector 15-ID
at the Advanced Photon Source, Argonne National Laboratory on DPPC
monolayers with various mole fractions of dihydrocholesterol (Chol).
Figure 1 shows the GIXD intensity maps for
(A) pure DPPC at 20 mN/m and (B) 6.4 mol % Chol/DPPC monolayers at
40 mN/m. Figure 2 shows the q-integrated intensity
profiles (arbitrary units) for DPPC/Chol monolayers at 20, 30, and
40 mN/m for 0 to 7 mol % Chol (each spectra offset by 1000).
Figure 1
Two-dimensional
X-ray maps of (A) pure DPPC at Π = 20 mN/m
and (B) 6.4 mol % Chol in DPPC at Π = 40 mN/m. Two Bragg reflections
are visible, the degenerate [11] reflection at positive q and lower q and the [02] at higher q and q =0, indicating nearest neighbor tilt.
Figure 2
GIXD intensity integrated over the z-direction.
For all surface pressures, the [11] peak migrates to higher q with increasing cholesterol.
The [02] peak remains at the same location for all cholesterol or
surface pressures (dotted lines). The basic motif of the DPPC lattice
is unchanged by cholesterol, although the tilt is reduced with increasing
cholesterol. Cholesterol broadens both peaks consistent with a decrease
in the size of the correlated areas in the monolayer.
Two-dimensional
X-ray maps of (A) pure DPPC at Π = 20 mN/m
and (B) 6.4 mol % Chol in DPPC at Π = 40 mN/m. Two Bragg reflections
are visible, the degenerate [11] reflection at positive q and lower q and the [02] at higher q and q =0, indicating nearest neighbor tilt.GIXD intensity integrated over the z-direction.
For all surface pressures, the [11] peak migrates to higher q with increasing cholesterol.
The [02] peak remains at the same location for all cholesterol or
surface pressures (dotted lines). The basic motif of the DPPC lattice
is unchanged by cholesterol, although the tilt is reduced with increasing
cholesterol. Cholesterol broadens both peaks consistent with a decrease
in the size of the correlated areas in the monolayer.We assign the Bragg peak in Figure 1 at
lower q and positive q as due to the degenerate (11)
and (11̅) reflections of distorted hexagonal packing;[25,33] the second peak at higher q and q = 0 is due
to the nondegenerate (02) reflection. As the (11) reflection is located
at q > 0, and the (02)
reflection
is centered at q = 0, the
alkane chains are tilted in the nearest neighbor (NN) direction.[25] Regardless of composition or surface pressure,
all ordered areas in the monolayers had the same distorted hexagonal
packing with NN tilt (Figure 3B, inset).
Figure 3
(A) d11 and (B) d02 as
a function of cholesterol and surface pressure. d11 decreases with increasing surface pressure
and cholesterol fraction. d02 is invariant
with both cholesterol and surface pressure. This is consistent with
a decrease in tilt, which decreases d11, while the alkane chain packing normal to the chain axis, hence d02 remains the same. Inset: Real space lattice
corresponding to the distorted hexagonal lattice parameters. One gray
and one white circle are the two alkane chains in a rectangular unit
cell of dimensions a and b. Translation
of the pair of gray and white circles by a and/or b generates the lattice. The spacing between the dotted
lines corresponds to the d-spacings in Table 2 and A, B.
(A) d11 and (B) d02 as
a function of cholesterol and surface pressure. d11 decreases with increasing surface pressure
and cholesterol fraction. d02 is invariant
with both cholesterol and surface pressure. This is consistent with
a decrease in tilt, which decreases d11, while the alkane chain packing normal to the chain axis, hence d02 remains the same. Inset: Real space lattice
corresponding to the distorted hexagonal lattice parameters. One gray
and one white circle are the two alkane chains in a rectangular unit
cell of dimensions a and b. Translation
of the pair of gray and white circles by a and/or b generates the lattice. The spacing between the dotted
lines corresponds to the d-spacings in Table 2 and A, B.
Table 2
Real-Space Lattice Parameters, d = 2π/q, As a Function of Cholesterol Mole
Fraction (Chol %)a
20 mN/m surface pressure
Chol %
d02 (Å)
d11 (Å)
a (Å)
b (Å)
θ°
area (Å2)
chain area (Å2)
L02 (Å)
L11 (Å)
0
4.30
4.79
5.77
8.61
35.4
49.7
20.3
318
68
0.4
4.33
4.75
5.68
8.65
34.9
49.2
20.2
271
64
0.8
4.30
4.76
5.71
8.60
35.2
49.2
20.1
250
62
1.6
4.31
4.75
5.69
8.61
33.9
49.0
20.3
199
55
3.7
4.31
4.69
5.58
8.61
32.2
48.1
20.3
138
47
4.5
4.31
4.69
5.58
8.61
32.0
48.0
20.4
131
50
5.0
4.30
4.67
5.57
8.59
31.5
47.8
20.4
139
42
6.4
4.32
4.69
5.58
8.63
31.9
48.2
20.5
99
40
7
4.31
4.66
5.54
8.62
30.4
47.8
20.6
92
41
All d-spacings are referenced
to a two molecule rectangular unit cell with a = d10 = [d11–2 – (2d02)−2]−1/2 and b = 2d02= d01 (see inset to Figure 3B). The error in a is larger than b as the (11) reflection is much broader than the (02) reflection
(see Figure 2). θ is the tilt angle of
the alkane chains in degrees with respect to the water surface, tan
θ = q[q112 −(q02/2)2]−1/2[25] from Table 1 (see inset to Figure 3B). The chain area
is the cross sectional area of the chains in the direction perpendicular
to the chains, or (ab cos θ)/2. L02 and L11 are the coherence
lengths in the (02) and (11) directions, L ≅ (0.9·2π)/(fwhm).
The q-integrated
intensity
profiles (Figure 2) show that the (11) Bragg
peak broadens and moves to higher q with increasing cholesterol content (dotted lines) for all
surface pressures, while the (02) peak also broadens with increasing
cholesterol content but remains at constant q. From the q values in Table 1, the real space lattice
dimensions are d =
2π/q (Table 2 and Figure 3). The tilt angle, θ, for nearest neighbor
tilt is given by tan θ = q[q112 – (q02/2)2]−1/2.[25] The
coherence length is determined from the full width at half-maximum
(fwhm) of each peak after correction
for the instrumental resolution, L = (0.9·2π)/(fwhm)[25] (Table 2).
Table 1
Reciprocal Space Lattice Parameters
from GIXD for All Samples at 20, 30, and 40 mN/m Surface Pressure
As a Function of Cholesterol Mole Fraction (Chol %)a
20 mN/m surface pressure
Chol %
q02 (Å-1)
q11 (Å–1)
qz (Å-1)
0
1.46
1.31
0.773
0.4
1.45
1.32
0.771
0.8
1.46
1.32
0.776
1.6
1.46
1.32
0.741
3.7
1.46
1.34
0.709
4.5
1.46
1.34
0.702
5.0
1.46
1.35
0.691
6.4
1.46
1.34
0.699
7.0
1.46
1.35
0.665
q02 and q11 are the lattice parameters in Fourier space
for the two strong reflections from the q averaged data. q is the z coordinate of the (11) reflection. All (02) reflections
are centered at q = 0. (See
Figure 1).
q02 and q11 are the lattice parameters in Fourier space
for the two strong reflections from the q averaged data. q is the z coordinate of the (11) reflection. All (02) reflections
are centered at q = 0. (See
Figure 1).All d-spacings are referenced
to a two molecule rectangular unit cell with a = d10 = [d11–2 – (2d02)−2]−1/2 and b = 2d02= d01 (see inset to Figure 3B). The error in a is larger than b as the (11) reflection is much broader than the (02) reflection
(see Figure 2). θ is the tilt angle of
the alkane chains in degrees with respect to the water surface, tan
θ = q[q112 −(q02/2)2]−1/2[25] from Table 1 (see inset to Figure 3B). The chain area
is the cross sectional area of the chains in the direction perpendicular
to the chains, or (ab cos θ)/2. L02 and L11 are the coherence
lengths in the (02) and (11) directions, L ≅ (0.9·2π)/(fwhm).Figure 3A shows that, at a fixed surface
pressure, adding Chol decreases d11 while
Figure 3B shows that d02 remains constant. For pure DPPC, d11 decreases from 4.79 to 4.58 Å as the surface pressure
increases from 20 to 40 mN/m; d02 is constant
at 4.30 Å (Table 1). Cholesterol and surface
pressure influence the lattice in a similar way; the same linear relationship
between d11 and the tilt angle θ
holds over the range of surface pressures and cholesterol fractions
examined (Figure 4). θ decreases with
increasing surface pressure, and with some scatter, increasing cholesterol
fraction from 35° for pure DPPC at 20 mN/m to 18° for 7 mol % Chol at 40 mN/m. This change in tilt causes
a decrease in the area per DPPC molecule at the air–water interface
from 49.9 ± 1 to 43.9 ± 1 Å2.
Figure 4
Molecular tilt
angle measured from the monolayer normal, θ,
decreases in the same manner with increasing cholesterol fraction
as with increasing surface pressure (over this range of θ, sin
θtilt ∼ θtilt; to convert
to degrees of tilt, θ° = 180(θtilt/π)).
Black symbols −20 mN/m surface pressure, Open symbols −30
mN/m and Gray symbols −40 mN/m. With some scatter, the tilt
decreases with increasing cholesterol fraction. This linear relationship
between d11 and θ is the same for
changes in cholesterol fraction and surface pressure, which suggests
that the local alkane packing of DPPC does not change with added cholesterol,
but that both surface pressure and cholesterol act to decrease the
mismatch between the lipid headgroup and tailgroup area in the same
way.
Molecular tilt
angle measured from the monolayer normal, θ,
decreases in the same manner with increasing cholesterol fraction
as with increasing surface pressure (over this range of θ, sin
θtilt ∼ θtilt; to convert
to degrees of tilt, θ° = 180(θtilt/π)).
Black symbols −20 mN/m surface pressure, Open symbols −30
mN/m and Gray symbols −40 mN/m. With some scatter, the tilt
decreases with increasing cholesterol fraction. This linear relationship
between d11 and θ is the same for
changes in cholesterol fraction and surface pressure, which suggests
that the local alkane packing of DPPC does not change with added cholesterol,
but that both surface pressure and cholesterol act to decrease the
mismatch between the lipid headgroup and tailgroup area in the same
way.From the values in Table 2, we determine
a rectangular two-molecule unit cell of dimensions, a = d10 = [d11–2 –
(2d02)−2]−1/2 and b = 2d02 = d01 (Figure 3B Inset),
with a decreasing from 5.8 ± 0.1 at 20 mN/m,
to 5.4 ± 0.1 Å at 40 mN/m; b remains constant
at 8.6 ± 0.05 Å. These unit cell dimensions are consistent
with a hexagonal packing of the alkane chains,[34] which are tilted to accommodate the mismatch in projected
area between the DPPC headgroup and the close-packed chains.[25,33] As is the case for other lipids, accommodation of the larger DPPC
headgroup area occurs by dilation of the alkane chain area via an
increase in the tilt angle. Tilt costs little favorable alkane chain
contact energy, as tilt occurs without changing the distances between
the alkane chains.[25] Tilt in the NN direction
causes a, which is measured in the plane of the monolayer,
to increase. However, b remains constant as this
spacing does not change with tilt if the alkane chains retain their
close-packed configuration. Increasing the surface pressure provides
a uniform compression of the DPPC headgroup, which results in a decrease
in the headgroup-chain incompatibility, and hence the tilt, without
altering the alkane chain packing.[25]The area per alkane chain perpendicular to the alkane chains, 20.5
± 0.3 Å2 = (ab cos θ)/2,
is constant within the experimental error for all surface pressures
and also for all cholesterol fractions. Pure Chol has an untilted
hexagonal lattice with a d spacing of 5.7 Å,
and an area per molecule of ∼35 Å2,[35] much larger than the 20.5 Å2 area per alkane chain we measure. The invariance of d02 (or b), and the linear relationship
between d11 and θ is consistent
with the bulk of the Chol not intercalating uniformly into the DPPC
lattice as it does at higher mole fractions,[35,36] but separating primarily into a second phase. Figure 5 shows AFM images of
DPPC/Chol monolayers transferred to mica substrates at 20 mN/m showing
two distinct morphologies. At 0.8 mol % Chol, dark gray, 10–100
nm circular areas are dispersed in extended light gray domains. The
dark gray nanodomains localize preferentially at the boundaries of
the light gray domains (arrows).[10] Increasing
the Chol fraction causes the circular nanodomains to percolate into
linear structures (3.7 mol %), although the width of the linear structures
remains ∼10–100 nm. The linear structures eventually
break up the light gray domains (5 mol %). AFM force spectroscopy
showed that the nanodomains were more compliant and easier to deform
than the DPPC domains,[10] suggesting that
the nanodomains are disordered and do not contribute to the GIXD signature
of the monolayer.The alkane chains of DPPC prefer to be untilted
to maximize the
van der Waals contact between the chains,[25,34] but are frustrated by the conflicting cross-sectional area requirements
of the phosphocholine headgroup. This mismatch requires the tailgroup
lattice to dilate, which responds by the lower energy tilt deformation
in order to fill space efficiently. However, Chol has a complementary
shape to DPPC, with a relatively small alcohol headgroup and a relatively
large sterol ring tailgroup. Hence, this shape complementarity suggests
that Chol can relieve the packing frustration of DPPC by making up
some of the mismatch between the headgroups and alkane chains. Palmitic
acid (PA) and hexadecanol (HD), which also have complementary shapes
with DPPC, also lead to a decreased tilt at a given surface pressure,[33] but do not show nanodomains in AFM images. The
saturated C16 alkane chain of PA and HD is the same as
the C16 alkane chain of DPPC, which allows PA and HD to
be incorporated into the DPPC lattice. PA and HD increase the correlation
length of the mixed crystal[33] and the surface
viscosity.[37]Tapping-mode AFM images
of DPPC/cholesterol monolayers transferred
by Langmuir-Blodgett deposition to mica substrates at 20 mN/m. For
0.8 mol % cholesterol, dispersed, circular 10–100 nanodomains
appear (darker gray indicates more compliant relative to the lighter
gray background phase[10]), which preferentially
locate at the boundaries of the light gray domains (arrows). For 3.7
mol % Chol, the circular nanodomains have condensed into linear features
begin to break up the light gray domains, but the light gray domains
remain continuous. For 5.0 mol % Chol the nanodomains make up a cocontinuous
network separating the light gray domains, while decreasing the size
of the light gray domains to 100–200 nm. Figure adapted from
ref (10).Fluorescence images of DPPC monolayers with 0.0, 0.2,
and 0.4 mol
% cholesterol at coexistence between the disordered LE (light) and
ordered LC (dark) phases at 10 mN/m. Contrast is due to doping the
monolayer with 0.1 wt % of the fluorescent (N-(Texas
Red sulfonyl)-1,2-dihexadecanoyl-sn-glycero-3-phosphoethanolamine,
(Invitrogen) which segregates to the more fluid LE phase. The domain
width decreases with increasing cholesterol, indicative of a decrease
in line tension. The contrast disappears at higher surface pressures.Although the shape of cholesterol
can relieve the frustration between
the area of the headgroup and alkane chains of DPPC, the sterol rings
cannot efficiently pack into the alkane chain lattice. This leads
to a second type of frustration; the decrease in tilt due to the accommodation
of the area mismatch results in disrupting the alkane chain lattice,
which is likely higher in energy than decreasing the tilt.[25] This second type of frustration may be accommodated
by nanodomain phase separation. The combination of the sterol rings
of Chol and more disorderedDPPC chains gives the nanodomain phase
excess tailgroup area, which may relieve part of the packing frustration
of the headgroups in the adjacent ordered DPPC domains, albeit at
longer range than if the cholesterol intercalated within the DPPC
lattice.The size of domains in typical phase-separated monolayers
is governed
by a competition between line tension, λ, which leads to larger
domains, and entropy and electrostatic interactions, which favor smaller
domains.[23,38,39] Fluorescence
images (Figure 6) at the coexistence surface pressure (9–10 mN/m) show that
increasing Chol leads to a dramatic decrease in the width of the domains,
which means a large decrease in λ.[10,23,38] This decrease may be sufficient to stabilize
the nanodomains against coalescence. An additional factor stabilizing
the nanodomains may be the energy of reducing the tilt in the adjacent
DPPC domains. The time for diffusive mixing of the nanodomains with
the bulk is of order seconds over the ∼100 nm length scales
of the nanodomains,[40] so even with electrostatic
interactions slowing bulk coalescence, molecular diffusion should
eliminate the nanodomains in minutes if this structure were not stable.
This stability may also be an indication that we are seeing an example
of the recently proposed 2-D analogs of 3-D microemulsions, in which
compositional variations within a single phase are due to coupling
between monolayer curvature (i.e. incompatible area requirements of
headgroups and tails) and composition.[6,41] The evolution
of the structure between discrete circular nanodomains (analogous
to spherical micelles in 3-D) to extended linear structures (rod-like
micelles) to an interconnected network (bicontinuous microemulsion)
suggests this possibility.Figure 7A
shows that the coherence length, L02,
in the untilted direction for pure DPPC
is about 70 lattice repeats, or >300 Å, more than five times
that in the tilted direction, L11 ∼
60 Å or about 12 lattice repeats (Table 2). For both 20 and 30 mN/m, L02 decreases
monotonically with increasing cholesterol fraction to ∼20 lattice
repeats, but L11 only decreases to ∼10
lattice repeats. At 40 mN/m, L02 does
not monotonically decrease with cholesterol fraction, the scatter
in L02 is much greater than at lower surface
pressures, and L02 is always less than
expected from the results for the lower surface pressures. This is
likely due to a decrease in film stability caused by a combination
of leakage under the trough barriers and slow monolayer collapse during
the 3-5 h required for GIXD. The AFM images in Figure 5 show that the average DPPC (light gray) domain size decreases
from microns to 100–200 nm with cholesterol. Even with the
decreasing domain size, the positional ordering given by the coherence
lengths are orders of magnitude smaller than the domain size for a
given cholesterol fraction. However, the orientational order extends
for tens of microns as shown by the spiral domain textures in Figure 6.[10] DPPC/Chol monolayers
have nanometer-range positional order and micron-range orientational
order,[20,42] similar to tilted Smectic C liquid crystals[43] and other Langmuir films that are classified
as hexatics.[44]
Figure 7
(A) Coherence lengths, L11, in the
(11) or tilt direction, and L02, in the
(02) or untilted direction, normalized by their respective lattice
constants, d11 and d02. L02 decreases significantly
with cholesterol fraction, but is less affected by surface pressure. L02 for 40 mN/m has more scatter and is nonmonotonic
with cholesterol fraction, likely the result of film instabilities
due to trough leakage and monolayer collapse at higher surface pressure.
(B) The surface viscosity of DPPC/Chol monolayers measured with a
microbutton magnetic rheometer decreases exponentially with cholesterol
fraction for a given surface pressure for small mole fractions of
cholesterol, then plateaus in the same fashion as L02. (Surface viscosity for pure DPPC at 40 mN/m was too
high for the viscometer to measure.) (C) Free area model for DPPC/Chol
monolayers (eqs 6-8) provides
an excellent correlation between the surface viscosity and the number
of correlated molecules, (L02·L11)/ab, over the entire range
of cholesterol fraction. The lines are linear regression fits of eq 7 to the data (p < 0.01). (D)
Normalizing to a reference state (taken to be that of pure DPPC for
20 and 30 mN/m and 0.4% Chol for 40 mN/m surface pressures), collapses
the data onto a single universal curve relating surface viscosity
to the molecular organization. The line is a linear regression fit
of eq 8 to the data with p <
.001 showing that the data is well described by the free area model.
(A) Coherence lengths, L11, in the
(11) or tilt direction, and L02, in the
(02) or untilted direction, normalized by their respective lattice
constants, d11 and d02. L02 decreases significantly
with cholesterol fraction, but is less affected by surface pressure. L02 for 40 mN/m has more scatter and is nonmonotonic
with cholesterol fraction, likely the result of film instabilities
due to trough leakage and monolayer collapse at higher surface pressure.
(B) The surface viscosity of DPPC/Chol monolayers measured with a
microbutton magnetic rheometer decreases exponentially with cholesterol
fraction for a given surface pressure for small mole fractions of
cholesterol, then plateaus in the same fashion as L02. (Surface viscosity for pure DPPC at 40 mN/m was too
high for the viscometer to measure.) (C) Free area model for DPPC/Chol
monolayers (eqs 6-8) provides
an excellent correlation between the surface viscosity and the number
of correlated molecules, (L02·L11)/ab, over the entire range
of cholesterol fraction. The lines are linear regression fits of eq 7 to the data (p < 0.01). (D)
Normalizing to a reference state (taken to be that of pure DPPC for
20 and 30 mN/m and 0.4% Chol for 40 mN/m surface pressures), collapses
the data onto a single universal curve relating surface viscosity
to the molecular organization. The line is a linear regression fit
of eq 8 to the data with p <
.001 showing that the data is well described by the free area model.Figure 7B shows that the surface viscosity,
ηs, of DPPC/Chol monolayers[10,27,28] decreases exponentially with increasing
cholesterol fraction at a given surface pressure. In previous work,[10] we found that the exponential dependence of
surface viscosity on surface pressure was well-correlated by a “free
area” model[21,22,27,32,40,45] analogous to the classic free volume model of Cohen
and Turnbull.[19] The free-volume model[19] was developed to explain the divergence in the
viscosity of a liquid at the glass transition. The premise underlying
the model is that in order to diffuse, a molecule in a liquid or other
condensed phase has to have sufficient “free volume”,
that is, volume not occupied by other molecules, in order to escape
the cage formed by its neighboring molecules. Each molecule has a
minimum van der Waals volume, V0, and
moves randomly with thermal velocity u, within confining
cages of diameter d0 defined by its nearest
neighbors.[19] Cohen and Turnbull calculated
the probability for fluctuations in free volume relative to the average
free volume, V̅. If the local fluctuation in
free volume exceeds V0, a hole is created
in the confining cage sufficiently large to allow a diffusional jump
of the solute molecule into the hole. Diffusion occurs if another
molecule fills the hole left by the solute molecule before the original
molecule returns to its starting position.[19] The probability P(V0) that the “free” volume, Vf, rearranges to give a void volume, V0, large enough for a molecule to diffuse (at constant energy) is
given by[19]thus giving a diffusivityin which g is a geometric
factor.[19] The parameter B in eqs 1 and 2 is to
take into account overlaps of free volume, and Cohen and Turnbull
suggest a range from 1/2 ≤ B ≤ 1.[19]In three dimensions, the diffusivity can
be related to the bulk
viscosity, η, via a generalized Stokes-Einstein relationship, D = kT/f. For spherical
particles, the friction factor, f, is given by the
Stokes drag on a sphere of diameter a: f = 3πηa. This leads to the free volume
model for the viscosity:In applications of the model, the free volume
is the difference between the measured volume per molecule, V, and V0: Vf = V – V0. In applications of the model, V0 is a fitting parameter; theoretically, V0 is related to the volume per molecule at the glass transition where
the viscosity diverges.For a 2-dimensional film of constant
thickness, L:In analogy to the free volume, Af(Π) = A(Π) – A0, in which A(Π) is the
area per molecule determined at a surface pressure, Π, from
a surface pressure-area isotherm and A0 is taken to be a fitting parameter. In 2-dimensions, the diffusivity
and free area can be related to the surface viscosity, η, via the Saffmann-Delbrück model[29] for a cylinder diffusing within a viscous monolayer,
surrounded by a viscous subphase, to give an equation analogous to
eq 3 in terms of the free area:[10,21,22,40,45]From fitting DPPC
viscosity data, we found
that A0 ∼ 40 Å2,[10,21,22,45] which is roughly equal to ab cos
θ, the molecular area of a DPPC molecule in a close-packed,
untilted lattice (Table 2).However,
Cohen and Turnbull did not speculate on the molecular
origins of Af(19) as they were modeling an unstructured liquid. However, for semicrystalline
monolayers, we postulate that the free area is proportional to the
number of defects in the lattice, which is inversely proportional
to the number of correlated molecules at that composition and surface
pressure:Lattice defects, such as dislocations,
vacancies, and grain boundaries
decorrelate the lattice, which creates free area and pathways for
diffusion. We define α as the free area (or number of defects
times the area per defect[20]) per number
of correlated molecules; we take α to be constant, independent
of concentration. Combining eqs 5 and 6:in which β = BA0/α. Linear
regression to eq 7 (Figure 7C) shows that for 20, 30, and 40 mN/m, the slopes,
β = 0.0134 ± 0.0007, 0.0131 ± 0.002 and 0.0196 ±
0.007 are the same within the experimental error. ηs0(Π = 20 mN/m)
= 0.09 ± 0.02, ηs0(Π = 30 mN/m) = 0.37 ± 0.2, and
ηs0(Π
= 40 mN/m) = 0.6 ± 0.5 μP·m·s, although the physical
significance of the surface pressure variation of ηs0 is not given by
our model. The Pearson correlation coefficient, , for the three lines are 0.99, 0.95 and 0.81, respectively,
giving a statistically significant fit of eq 7 to the data with p < 0.001, 0.001, and 0.05,
respectively. To better compare the data at different surface pressures,
the surface viscosity and correlated area are normalized relative
to a reference composition, xref, at the
same Π:ηref(xref,Π) is
the surface viscosity and ((L02L11)/ab)ref is the
number of molecules in the coherence area
at xref (taken to be pure DPPC for Π
= 20 and 30 mN/m and 0.4% Chol for Π = 40 mN/m). Figure 7D shows that eq 8 eliminates
the surface pressure dependence. Linear regression to eq 8 gives β = 0.0133 ± 0.007, which is the same as
the fits to eq 7. The Pearson correlation coefficient
is 0.91, giving p < 0.001, showing that eq 8 gives a statistically significant representation
of the surface viscosity over the almost three orders of magnitude
change in surface viscosity (Figure 7B). For A0 ∼ 40 Å2,[10,25] α ∼ 1500 Å2 (for B = 1/2) – 3000 Å2 (for B =
1). For pure DPPC, (L02L11)/ab ∼ 450, giving Af ∼ 3–6 Å2 from eq 6, which is consistent with the variation in area
per molecule, A(x,Π) = A0 + Af(x,Π), measured from DPPC isotherms.[10,25] Adding cholesterol decreases (L02L11)/ab to ∼100, thereby
increasing the free area per molecule to 15–30 Å2, resulting in the dramatic decrease in surface viscosity. These
values of Af are in agreement with the
assumptions behind the Cohen and Turnbull free volume theory, which
postulates that Vf ≪ V0, hence Af ≪ A0.
Conclusions
In summary, GIXD shows
that increasing the Chol fraction at constant
surface pressure, or increasing the surface pressure at constant Chol
fraction, decreases the tilt of the DPPC lattice, while leaving the
alkane chains close-packed with an invariant area per molecule normal
to the alkane chain direction. This confirms AFM images that show
cholesterol does not intercalate homogeneously into the DPPC lattice
but is expelled to disordered nanodomains that break up the DPPC domains.
The nanodomains evolve from isolated, circular 10–100 nm diameter
domains to ∼10–50 nm wide linear nanodomain aggregates
to an interconnected network structure with increasing cholesterol.
However, the monolayer is homogeneous at micron-scale optical images;
macroscopic phase separation does not occur as at lower surface pressure
(Figure 6). Hence, the DPPC/cholesterol monolayer
is better described as a nanostructured, single-phase monolayer, rather
than a mixture of two distinct phases, similar to recently proposed
two-dimensional microemulsions.[6,41] As such, this system
is analogous to 3-D nanostructured surfactant-oil-water bicontinuous
microemulsions, or copolymer systems that separate into nanometer-scale
regions more enriched in one or the other monomer, which are considered
single phase.Adding cholesterol does not change the local hexagonal
DPPC chain
packing, but does reduce the molecular tilt, suggesting that cholesterol
relieves some of the packing frustration between the DPPC headgroup
and tailgroups. Most important to the monolayer dynamics, the extent
of order, or the number of correlated molecules, decreases with increasing
cholesterol fraction at all surface pressures, suggesting an increased
number of lattice defects that create free area for visco-diffusive
transport. At all cholesterol fractions, the positional order is much
shorter ranged than the orientational order, consistent with an overall
hexatic organization.[20] We show that a
simple model that proposes that the “free” area available
for visco-diffusive transport[19] is inversely
proportional to the number of correlated molecules, which collapses
the surface viscosity data for all surface pressures and cholesterol
fractions onto a single universal curve. Molecular defects and the
associated decrease in domain size caused by the incompatibility of
cholesterol packing into the alkane chain lattice enhance visco-diffusive
transport in monolayers. Our model and data show that the extent of
molecular correlations is an excellent predictor of the effects of
the cholesterol on the surface viscosity of model lung surfactant
monolayers. Future work should show if this relationship is universal
to other phospholipid monolayers.
Authors: Dong Woog Lee; Younjin Min; Prajnaparamitra Dhar; Arun Ramachandran; Jacob N Israelachvili; Joseph A Zasadzinski Journal: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A Date: 2011-05-23 Impact factor: 11.205
Authors: Roger G Spragg; James F Lewis; Hans-Dieter Walmrath; Jay Johannigman; Geoff Bellingan; Pierre-Francois Laterre; Michael C Witte; Guy A Richards; Gerd Rippin; Frank Rathgeb; Dietrich Häfner; Friedemann J H Taut; Werner Seeger Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2004-08-26 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Maria K Ratajczak; Eva Y Chi; Shelli L Frey; Kathleen D Cao; Laura M Luther; Ka Yee C Lee; Jaroslaw Majewski; Kristian Kjaer Journal: Phys Rev Lett Date: 2009-07-08 Impact factor: 9.161
Authors: Jenny Marie Andersson; Carl Grey; Marcus Larsson; Tiago Mendes Ferreira; Emma Sparr Journal: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A Date: 2017-04-17 Impact factor: 11.205
Authors: Sourav Barman; Michael L Davidson; Lynn M Walker; Shelly L Anna; Joseph A Zasadzinski Journal: Soft Matter Date: 2020-07-29 Impact factor: 3.679
Authors: A K Sachan; S Q Choi; K H Kim; Q Tang; L Hwang; K Y C Lee; T M Squires; J A Zasadzinski Journal: Soft Matter Date: 2017-02-15 Impact factor: 3.679
Authors: Shweta Narayan; Sourav Barman; Davis B Moravec; Brad G Hauser; Andrew J Dallas; Joseph A Zasadzinski; Cari S Dutcher Journal: Soft Matter Date: 2021-05-12 Impact factor: 3.679