Sander Pronk1, Erik Lindahl, Peter M Kasson. 1. 'Department of Theoretical Physics, KTH Royal Institute of Technology , AlbaNova, 106 91 Stockholm, Sweden.
Abstract
Biomembrane interfaces create regions of slowed water dynamics in their vicinity. When two lipid bilayers come together, this effect is further accentuated, and the associated slowdown can affect the dynamics of larger-scale processes such as membrane fusion. We have used molecular dynamics simulations to examine how lipid and water dynamics are affected as two lipid bilayers approach each other. These two interacting fluid systems, lipid and water, both slow and become coupled when the lipid membranes are separated by a thin water layer. We show in particular that the water dynamics become glassy, and diffusion of lipids in the apposed leaflets becomes coupled across the water layer, while the "outer" leaflets remain unaffected. This dynamic coupling between bilayers appears mediated by lipid-water-lipid hydrogen bonding, as it occurs at bilayer separations where water-lipid hydrogen bonds become more common than water-water hydrogen bonds. We further show that such coupling occurs in simulations of vesicle-vesicle fusion prior to the fusion event itself. Such altered dynamics at membrane-membrane interfaces may both stabilize the interfacial contact and slow fusion stalk formation within the interface region.
Biomembrane interfaces create regions of slowed water dynamics in their vicinity. When two lipid bilayers come together, this effect is further accentuated, and the associated slowdown can affect the dynamics of larger-scale processes such as membrane fusion. We have used molecular dynamics simulations to examine how lipid and water dynamics are affected as two lipid bilayers approach each other. These two interacting fluid systems, lipid and water, both slow and become coupled when the lipid membranes are separated by a thin water layer. We show in particular that the water dynamics become glassy, and diffusion of lipids in the apposed leaflets becomes coupled across the water layer, while the "outer" leaflets remain unaffected. This dynamic coupling between bilayers appears mediated by lipid-water-lipidhydrogen bonding, as it occurs at bilayer separations where water-lipidhydrogen bonds become more common than water-waterhydrogen bonds. We further show that such coupling occurs in simulations of vesicle-vesicle fusion prior to the fusion event itself. Such altered dynamics at membrane-membrane interfaces may both stabilize the interfacial contact and slow fusion stalk formation within the interface region.
Lipid membranes provide
a key organizing principle for life: they
allow compartmentalization into cells and organelles, and two-dimensional
organization of enzymatic and signaling components, and exert marked
surface effects on biological fluids in their proximity. But what
happens when two lipid membranes approach one another closely? Multilayer
stacks have been extensively studied as a homogeneous model system
for physical investigation of membrane properties. However, a single
pair of bilayers coming close to one another, as can occur prior to
membrane fusion or in tight junction formation, represents a subtly
different physical scenario: the proximal leaflets are separated by
a thin layer of water, but the distal leaflets remain well-hydrated.This inhomogeneous prefusion system is difficult to study directly,
but a large body of work, both simulation and experimental, has addressed
the more general problem of altered lipid and water dynamics at interacting
surfaces. Although biological membranes contain a complex mixture
of different components, the fluid–fluid interfaces and fundamental
confinement behaviors that concern us here can be reproduced by much
simpler lipid bilayer systems. Interfacial effects in well-hydrated
bilayers have been probed by a number of methods,[1−5] while the slowing of lipid and water diffusion as
multilayer stacks are progressively dehydrated has been characterized
extensively by spectroscopic and scattering-based experimental measures[6−11] as well as molecular dynamics simulations[12−14] or combined
methods.[15−17]We have previously performed simulations of
liposomal membrane
fusion where we predict that the interacting membranes may stably
approach each other prior to fusion.[18] This
prediction is consistent with analysis of PEG-induced fusion experiments
by Lentz and co-workers.[19] Furthermore,
electron microscopy and fluorescence resonance energy transfer experiments
have shown that docked vesicles can form extended and stable areas
of tight contact, although the nanoscale architecture of these contact
areas has yet to be established.[20,21] Our simulations
suggest that the dynamics of water and lipids at such membrane interfaces
can have a marked effect on overall fusion dynamics. In addition,
we have developed measures based on theories of glasses that allow
us to quantify anomalous diffusion in simulations of fluids near interfaces
in a straightforward manner: these methods helped demonstrate a general
effect of dynamic heterogeneity that slows fluid diffusion near surfaces.[22] An alternate approach was also developed by
Netz and co-workers.[23] Here, we apply these
methods to the close approach of two lipid bilayers, showing that
this confined “double interface” between two bilayers
leads to an even more pronounced effect on dynamics. We primarily
concern ourselves with this striking effect on dynamics rather than
equilibrium static structures. Most surprisingly, we predict that
the diffusion of lipids in the two proximal leaflets becomes coupled
across the water gap between them, while the distal leaflets remain
largely unperturbed. This coupled diffusion leads to a dramatic slowing
down of dynamics between the inner leaflets as the lipid bilayers
approach: water diffusion slows down by more than 1000-fold, while
the inner lipid diffusion constant goes down by a factor of 10.One subtle yet important detail of the inhomogeneous systems that
we examine here is that they represent metastable yet nonequilibrium
intermediates in the fusion process. The marked slowing and even glassy
dynamics of water in this system further slows relaxation of the system,
meaning that such nonequilibrium intermediates can persist at much
longer time scales than would otherwise be anticipated.Recent
work has suggested that the transition state for membrane
fusion stalk formation involves exposure[24] and even contact[25−27] of lipid acyl tails. In at least some model systems
for fusion, another step precedes stalk formation: the close apposition
of two interacting lipid bilayers and the dehydration of the contact
area between them.[18,24] The high free energy barrier
associated with dehydration has long been recognized and approached
theoretically.[28] Together, the coupled
and slowed lipid motion may help explain how lipid membranes can form
a relatively long-lived metastable apposed intermediate prior to fusion
stalk formation: fusion stalk nucleation and expansion each depend
on the diffusional motion of lipid tails. With current computational
resources, we can make a quantitative assessment of the altered dynamics
of apposed bilayers that contribute to fusion.
Results
The dynamics
of partially hydrated lipid bilayers are particularly
interesting from a physical point of view because the system comprises
two mobile and interacting components, the lipids and the water between
them. We use both conventional mean squared-displacement measurements
and event-based measures from from the physics of glassy systems to
help quantitate motion within this heterogeneous coupled environment.
Using such measures we find, as expected, a slowing of lipid and water
diffusion as the two bilayers approach one another. Strikingly and
unexpectedly, the motion of lipids in the apposed inner leaflets becomes
coupled across the intervening water layer. This occurs at a level
of hydration where the static structure of the bilayer is preserved.
Diffusion
of Water and Lipids
In order to examine the
dynamics within and between two bilayers as they approach one another,
we performed a series of atomic resolution molecular dynamics simulations
of two lipid bilayers with a varying amount of water between them,
as shown in Figure 1.
Figure 1
Shown in panel a is the
simulation geometry: two bilayers (red
and green) with a varying amount of water between them (blue). In
panel b the pair of opposed inner leaflets are rendered at a ratio
of 3 waters per lipid. At this ratio, extensive headgroup–headgroup
contact is present.
Shown in panel a is the
simulation geometry: two bilayers (red
and green) with a varying amount of water between them (blue). In
panel b the pair of opposed inner leaflets are rendered at a ratio
of 3 waters per lipid. At this ratio, extensive headgroup–headgroup
contact is present.The simulated system
consists of two bilayers with 256 or 128 palmitoyl-oleyl-phosphocholine
(POPC) molecules per bilayer, making the number of lipid molecules
in the inner two leaflets Nl = 128 or
256.The amount of water between the two bilayers was varied
from Nw = 16 to 0 waters per inner leaflet
lipid,
resulting in the headgroup–headgroup spacing shown in Figure 2. Additionally, 32 waters per outer leaflet lipid
were maintained at the “outside” of the two bilayers
to maintain a region of bulk water between the periodic images of
the system and thus model a pair of bilayers rather than a multilayer.
This amount of water was sufficient to maintain bulk water dynamics
in the “outer” compartment and similarly to maintain
bulk lipid dynamics in the outer leaflets of the bilayers. Bulk dynamics
were assessed by comparison to the dynamics of a single lipid bilayer
with 64 waters per lipid and to the results reported in prior simulation[29] and experimental[30] work.
Figure 2
Headgroup center of mass distance between the inner leaflets in z-coordinates, as a function of number of waters per lipid
between the inner leaflets. The distance plotted is the z-distance between the centers of mass for all headgroup atoms of
each inner leaflet.
Headgroup center of mass distance between the inner leaflets in z-coordinates, as a function of number of waters per lipid
between the inner leaflets. The distance plotted is the z-distance between the centers of mass for all headgroup atoms of
each inner leaflet.This system is not in
strict thermodynamic equilibrium with regard
to water, as water molecules will be more likely to cross from the
“outer” to the “inner” compartment than
the reverse. However, such crossings occur on very slow time scales:
total water crossings (in either direction) were observed at a rate
of roughly 0.07 ± 0.02 per water per microsecond. The distribution
of water between compartments is thus metastable on the time scales
considered here. Water molecules that crossed the bilayer were excluded
from the diffusional analysis. Additional simulation details are provided
in the Methods section.Average diffusion
constants were calculated in each simulation
as a function of the ratio of water molecules in the inner compartment
to lipid molecules in the inner bilayers of that simulation and are
plotted in Figure 3. As the number of water
molecules decreases, the diffusional dynamics of the outer leaflets
remain constant. The inner leaflet diffusion slows substantially,
and the diffusion of the water between the bilayers slows to approximately
that of the outer leaflet lipids. Similar effects have been reported
before, both in simulations[14,31] and in experiments
on lipid multilayers.[9]
Figure 3
Lateral diffusion coefficients
as as a function of bilayer separation.
Diffusion coefficients were calculated from a linear fit to the mean
squared displacement as a function of time. A two-dimensional model
was used for fitting displacements; this is appropriate for lipid
diffusion and water diffusion at low hydration. At full hydration,
the water diffusion will be more appropriately fit by a 3D model,
but the model error is bounded at 50% (⟨r2⟩ = 6Dt versus 4Dt), while the observed diffusional slowing effect is several orders
of magnitude.
Lateral diffusion coefficients
as as a function of bilayer separation.
Diffusion coefficients were calculated from a linear fit to the mean
squared displacement as a function of time. A two-dimensional model
was used for fitting displacements; this is appropriate for lipid
diffusion and water diffusion at low hydration. At full hydration,
the water diffusion will be more appropriately fit by a 3D model,
but the model error is bounded at 50% (⟨r2⟩ = 6Dt versus 4Dt), while the observed diffusional slowing effect is several orders
of magnitude.
Diffusional Coupling between
Leaflets
The slowing of
lateral diffusion in both inner leaflets raises the question of whether
individual lipid motion might be correlated in the two inner leaflets,
as in a coupled system. To measure the extent to which this diffusion
is coupled, we utilize event-based measures of diffusion: an exchange
event is the time it takes for a particle to diffuse a characteristic
distance d, such as the typical nearest neighbor
distance.The exchange time t is the time between consecutive exchange events: its average
is analogous to the time interval between steps in a random walk taken
and is therefore inversely related to the diffusion constant D = c/⟨t⟩, where D is the bulk diffusion
constant, and c is a constant factor that depends
on the exchange event distance d and the physical
details of the system being studied.[22,32,33]To assess diffusional coupling, we calculate
the ratio Dref/D, where D is an standard diffusion constant and Dref is a diffusion constant calculated using a reference
frame derived
from lipids in the opposite leaflet. This reference frame is defined
by the center of mass of the closest four lipids in the opposite leaflet,
so the coupled diffusion constant reflects average motion lipid relative
to nearby lipids in the opposite leaflet. As above, we calculate the
exchange time tref and use it to define the coupled
diffusion constant Dref = c/⟨tref⟩. Here, we have set the
exchange event distance d = 0.28 nm, the first peak
in the water–water radial distribution function.For
an uncoupled system, both the diffusing particle and the reference
point for coupling diffuse independently, and therefore, the ratio Dref/D = 2, twice as fast as
the single particle diffusion of D (as in a random
walk with two steps per time step). If diffusion is strongly coupled,
the ratio will be smaller: diffusion away from particles in the opposite
leaflets is slower than overall diffusion, making the value of the
ratio Dref/D < 1.The inner leaflets of the double-bilayer system display this coupled
behavior as they approach one another. As shown in Figure 4, both leaflets display uncoupled diffusion at 16
water molecules per lipid. (Dref/D ≈ 2). At closer approach, the coupling ratio progressively
decreases, reaching the fully coupled regime at approximately Nw < 6.
Figure 4
Diffusional coupling between the inner
bilayer leaflets. Coupling
is estimated as the ratio between an uncoupled estimate for the diffusion D and diffusion relative to the opposing leaflet Dref: diffusion relative to a reference frame
defined by the center of mass of the closest 4 lipids on the opposing
leaflet. The inset schematizes this by showing two neighboring lipids
in apposed inner leaflets. The normal diffusion D for the top lipid is calculated purely on the basis of its motion
relative to the leaflet center-of-mass, while the Dref is measured relative to the center of mass of the
bottom lipid (and three other neighbors). When these motions are strongly
correlated, the estimated coupled diffusion constant will be slower
than the uncoupled diffusion constant.
Diffusional coupling between the inner
bilayer leaflets. Coupling
is estimated as the ratio between an uncoupled estimate for the diffusion D and diffusion relative to the opposing leaflet Dref: diffusion relative to a reference frame
defined by the center of mass of the closest 4 lipids on the opposing
leaflet. The inset schematizes this by showing two neighboring lipids
in apposed inner leaflets. The normal diffusion D for the top lipid is calculated purely on the basis of its motion
relative to the leaflet center-of-mass, while the Dref is measured relative to the center of mass of the
bottom lipid (and three other neighbors). When these motions are strongly
correlated, the estimated coupled diffusion constant will be slower
than the uncoupled diffusion constant.
Hydrogen Bonding
This diffusional coupling between
lipid molecules on opposite sides of the water gap suggests a physical
interaction between phospholipid headgroups, either direct or mediated
by water. Phospholipid bilayer–water interfaces feature strong
hydrogen bond interactions between water and the lipid headgroups,[34,35] in addition to extremely favorable water–waterhydrogen bonds.
We therefore measured the frequency of water–waterhydrogen
bonds in the inner water region versus water–headgroup hydrogen
bonds. Pure POPC bilayers are incapable of forming direct headgroup–headgroup
hydrogen bonds, since POPC contains no appropriate donors. These data
are plotted in Figure 5 and show a crossover
at approximately 6 waters/lipid: below this level of hydration, water
molecules are on average more likely to be hydrogen-bound to lipids
than to other waters. This crossover coincides with the onset of coupling
between opposite inner-leaflet lipids, suggesting that the lipid–water–lipidhydrogen bonding network may in part be responsible for the observed
diffusional coupling.
Figure 5
Hydrogen bonding partners for confined water. The average
number
of water–lipid and water–water hydrogen bonds is plotted
per water molecule in the inner compartment between bilayers as a
function of water-to-lipid ratio. The inset shows the number of water-to-lipid
hydrogen-bonds per inner-leaflet lipid.
Hydrogen bonding partners for confined water. The average
number
of water–lipid and water–waterhydrogen bonds is plotted
per water molecule in the inner compartment between bilayers as a
function of water-to-lipid ratio. The inset shows the number of water-to-lipidhydrogen-bonds per inner-leaflet lipid.To examine how this behavior may affect membrane fusion dynamics,
we calculated diffusional coupling between lipids in the apposed surface
patch between two vesicles prior to fusion. Calculations were performed
on the vesicle fusion system we have previously reported,[18] using lipids starting in a 3.14 nm2 central contact region. Over a 10 ns interval prior to stalk formation,
the ratio Dcoupled/Duncoupled was 0.83, indicative of substantial diffusional coupling
across the water layer between vesicles.
Static Structure is Grossly
Maintained
These marked
changes in lipid and water diffusion between apposed bilayers appear
to be primarily a dynamic effect, driven in part by the change in
hydrogen bonding patterns, which we would classify as subtle rather
than gross structural changes. To rule out gross structural changes,
we calculated water radial distribution functions (Figure 6a) and lipid tail order parameters (Figure 6b). These indicate that fluid water structure and
lamellar bilayer structure are both mostly preserved at 4 waters/lipid,
a level of hydration at which coupled diffusion has clearly emerged.
Lamellar structure and fluid water structure break down at approximately
1 water/lipid, a much lower level of hydration. Our simulations show
a trend toward lower lipid tail order in the inner leaflets at lower
levels of hydration; prior studies on equilibrated multilayer stacks
have shown an increase in tail order.[36] This difference is likely due to differences in area per lipid headgroup,
since acyl tail order parameters shift in rougly proportional response
to lipid lateral area.[37−39]
Figure 6
Statics of bilayers in close proximity. (a) The 3D radial
distribution
function (rdf) of water confined between two bilayers shows the appearance
of structure dictated by the presence of the lipid bilayer headgroups,
at very close approach (approximately Nw/Nl < 4). The rdfs of the POPC headgroup
N atom are shown in green. (b) Lipid tail S order parameter calculated for the POPC sn1 chain
at varying hydration levels shows decreased ordering for closer approach.
Statics of bilayers in close proximity. (a) The 3D radial
distribution
function (rdf) of water confined between two bilayers shows the appearance
of structure dictated by the presence of the lipid bilayer headgroups,
at very close approach (approximately Nw/Nl < 4). The rdfs of the POPC headgroup
N atom are shown in green. (b) Lipid tail S order parameter calculated for the POPC sn1 chain
at varying hydration levels shows decreased ordering for closer approach.
As average water diffusion
slows from bulk values, it also becomes
markedly heterogeneous in space and time;[22] the spatial heterogeneity of the system leads to temporal heterogeneity
in diffusion, leading to observations of dynamics analogous to those
in glassy systems: the decoupling of diffusion from viscosity and
anomalous diffusion. To test for these changes in a quantitative manner,
we use the exchange time t, the time between consecutive exchange events, and compare
this to the persistence time t, the time it takes to undergo an exchange event starting from
any configuration at any time (i.e., not starting at a previous exchange
event).Observing a single water molecule over time starting
from some initial configuration, the time until the first exchange
event is a persistence time (because the starting time is essentially
a random point between exchanges), and then the subsequent intervals
between events are exchange times.Under normal fluid conditions,
the average persistence and exchange
times should be the same: exchange events should be uniformly and
randomly distributed over time.[32,40] In dynamically heterogeneous
systems, however, there will be times when there are rapid successions
of exchange events followed by long waits; this will lead to the ratio
⟨t⟩/⟨t⟩ to be significantly
different from 1.Figure 7 shows the
ratio ⟨t⟩/⟨t⟩ for water between
the bilayers
as a function of bilayer separation. As the spacing between the bilayers
decreases, the ratio increases substantially. This difference becomes
even more pronounced when the exchange event displacements are calculated
relative to the closest set of lipid headgroups, in effect correcting
for the lipid diffusion.
Figure 7
Ratio of average persistence time ⟨t⟩ and exchange time
⟨t⟩ as
a function of
bilayer separation. Dynamic heterogeneity is readily evident in this
system. In the regime where slowed diffusion is observed, this heterogeneity
and the associated nonuniformity of diffusion is of even greater magnitude
when water diffusion is measured relative to the nearest lipids, suggesting
a coupling between the water and lipid diffusion. For reference, the
ratio ⟨t⟩/⟨t⟩ is also plotted for
water close to a single lipid bilayer. While some dynamic heterogeneity
is present in this single-interface regime, it is markedly lower.
Ratio of average persistence time ⟨t⟩ and exchange time
⟨t⟩ as
a function of
bilayer separation. Dynamic heterogeneity is readily evident in this
system. In the regime where slowed diffusion is observed, this heterogeneity
and the associated nonuniformity of diffusion is of even greater magnitude
when water diffusion is measured relative to the nearest lipids, suggesting
a coupling between the water and lipid diffusion. For reference, the
ratio ⟨t⟩/⟨t⟩ is also plotted for
water close to a single lipid bilayer. While some dynamic heterogeneity
is present in this single-interface regime, it is markedly lower.This altered ratio ⟨t⟩/⟨t⟩ reflects an altered ratio between
diffusion and viscosity,
leading to a breakdown of the Stokes–Einstein relation that
governs normal bulk diffusion and viscosity.[32] Part of this process can be ascribed to the self-lubrication of
water motion: the presence of water facilitates the breakup and reconfiguration
of hydrogen bonds of other water molecules.[34,35] However, there is already significant diffusion–viscosity
decoupling at bilayer separations larger than the close approach where
water–water contacts become rare. We have previously shown
how this is a general feature of fluids at interfaces that is strengthened
by favorable molecular interactions such as those between water molecules
and lipid headgroups.[22] Here, the double
interface and strong hydrogen bonding interactions further accentuate
this phenomenon.Partially hydrated multilamellar stacks have
been observed to undergo
area condensation in a manner that depends on both acyl chain length
and unsaturation.[41,42] The inhomogeneous system considered
here, two bilayers approaching each other, is thus composed of inner
and outer leaflets at levels of hydration where the corresponding
homogeneous multilayer stacks would have different lateral lipid densities.
To control for bilayer stresses that might be introduced as a result
of such asymmetry, we performed an additional set of simulations where
the inner leaflets were initialized to a lipid lateral density 10
anticipated lipid density differences in fully hydrated bilayers versus
partially hydrated multilayer stacks, using data for DOPC multilayers
as a reference.[41,42] These bilayers of asymmetric
lipid density displayed a similar slowing of inner-leaflet lipid and
water diffusion to symmetric lipid bilayers (Supporting
Information Figure S1). They also displayed diffusion-velocity
decoupling and coupled diffusion (Supporting Information Figure S2). Structural parameters for the asymmetric bilayers are
plotted in Supporting Information Figure
S3. A comparison of lateral tension profiles between symmetric and
asymmetric bilayers is given in Supporting Information Figure S4, and the chemical potential difference of removing randomly
selected water molecules from either the fully hydrated region or
the partially dehydrated region, as calculated via free-energy perturbation
simulations for both symmetric and asymmetric bilayers, is plotted
in Supporting Information Figure S5.
Conclusions
Our study of water dynamics at bilayer interfaces
has been motivated
by the close approach prior to membrane fusion of two phospholipid
bilayers with a thin water layer between. In initial simulations of
membrane fusion, we noted that this water layer had unusual dynamics
and that perturbing the fine structure of that water layer altered
fusion dynamics in our simulations. We have developed concepts from
the theory of glasses to measure these dynamics in greater detail;
we found that altered fluid dynamics are a fundamental property of
surface interfaces and that interactions between the surface and fluid
(such as lipid–waterhydrogen bonds) serve to strengthen this
effect.Here, we bring these tools back to the study of water
layers between
two phospholipid membranes. We find that the double interface thus
produced further accentuates nonuniform diffusion in these thin water
layers, resulting in glassy water dynamics in our simulations. Both
water and lipid dynamics slow as the bilayers approach each other,
but the slow-down is only glassy for the water, not for the lipids.
This is likely due to the self-lubricating properties of water: a
water molecule is more likely to undergo diffusional motion when the
molecule has other water molecules as immediate neighbors: this creates
a self-reinforcing effect on water dynamics.We also find that
water acts to couple the dynamics of lipids in
opposing bilayers, such that lipids in the inner leaflets of these
membranes on average codiffuse with their partners across the water
gap. These properties begin at a ratio of approximately 5 water molecules
per inner-leaflet lipid in POPC bilayers. Strikingly, we observe similar
coupled diffusion in simulations of vesicle pairs prior to fusion.We therefore believe that water-mediated coupling acts to slow
lipid dynamics in lipid vesicles prior to membrane fusion (such as
the PEG-mediated liposomal fusion measured by Lentz and co-workers
where liposomes partially dehydrate prior to fusion[24]) and that this prolongs the aggregated and partially dehydrated
but prefusion step. Such diffusional slowing mediated by coupling
between inner-leaflet membranes may also be important in maintaining
restricted diffusion in epithelial tight junctions, where free diffusion
of membrane probes is correlated to the ability to exchange between
proximal (coupled) and distal (uncoupled) leaflets.[43] The extent to which diffusional slowing affects the rates
of different physiological fusion reactions such as viral membrane
fusion and synaptic membrane fusion remains to be determined. We speculate
that some of the regulatory machinery for fast membrane fusion such
as occurs at presynaptic termini may act to help avoid kinetic “traps”
such as the slowed and coupled movement of lipids we observe here.
Methods
Simulations were performed
with two POPClipid bilayers of 128
or 256 molecules each separated by a variable number of waters: 0
to 16 waters/inner leaflet lipid in the inner water layer and 32 water/outer
leaflet lipid in the outer water layer. The Berger force field parameters
were used for the POPC molecules, and the TIP3P model was used for
water. Simulation details are similar to those of ref (25) and are summarized briefly
as follows. Lipids were modeled using the Berger force field,[37] and the water model is TIP3P. A temperature
of 303 K was maintained using the velocity-rescaling thermostat,[44] and the pressure 1 bar, well clear of any 2D
phase transition.[45] The pressure was coupled
semi-isotropically, allowing the box size to fluctuate[46] by the same amount along the x and y axes or independently along the z axis.Each system was equilibrated for 10 ns, after which
point the equilibrium
values of box size and pressure were well converged. Production runs
were then performed for 400 ns each using a 4 fs time step. All bond
lengths were constrained with LINCS. Short-range cutoffs of 1.2 nm
were used, with long-range electrostatics treated via Particle Mesh
Ewald.[47] A 5 ps pressure-coupling constant
was employed in conjunction with a 0.1 ps temperature-coupling constant.Bilayers of asymmetric density were prepared by randomly deleting
10 outer leaflets of each bilayer at each hydration level. Each system
was equilibrated as above and then subjected to a further 100 ns of
equilibration prior to production runs of 350 ns each. Differential
pressure and surface tension were assessed in these simulations using
the Gromacs 4.5 local pressure code[48] in
a manner similar to that described in the reference publication. Local
pressures were calculated on frames at 4 ns intervals and saved onto
a grid at 0.15 nm resolution.The free energy of removal of
an internal or external water molecule
from the system was calculated by running several systems where gradually
an 8.85 kJ mol–1 nm–1 umbrella
potential was applied to the water molecule relative to a set of water
molecules in a cylinder of radius 2.8 nm centered around the water
molecule to be removed.[49] After the umbrella
potential was removed, the charge–charge interactions between
the water and the rest of the system were gradually removed, after
which the van der Waals interactions were removed while applying a
soft-core potential.[50] All of the intermediate
states were kept constant and simulated as equilibrium states with
3 ns equilibration time and 1 ns sampling time using stochastic dynamics
with a 4 ps time step. The free energy was integrated using the Bennett
acceptance ratio method.[51]Simulations
of vesicle–vesicle fusion used identical conditions
(and indeed identical trajectories) to those previously reported,[18] with the exception that coordinates were analyzed
at a 40 ps interval to measure lipid diffusional coupling. Briefly,
a pair of 15 nm vesicles was simulated connected by an amide cross-linker.[25] Each vesicle was composed of 877 POPC or POPE
phospholipids using the Berger simulation parameters and solvated
in explicit TIP3P water. The vesicles were initially placed at 1 nm
separation with no applied force. Measurements reported in this Article
were performed on the vesicles after stable contact structures had
formed but before fusion stalk formation.Simulations were performed
using Gromacs 4.5[52] on one to four cluster
nodes with 24 AMD Opteron 8425HE
cores per node and a QDR Infiniband interconnect, with speeds of approximately
77 ns/day for the 512-POPC systems on 4 nodes. Additional simulations
were performed on 32 cluster nodes with 16 Intel E5-2670 codes per
node and a Cray Aires interconnect.
Authors: Sander Pronk; Szilárd Páll; Roland Schulz; Per Larsson; Pär Bjelkmar; Rossen Apostolov; Michael R Shirts; Jeremy C Smith; Peter M Kasson; David van der Spoel; Berk Hess; Erik Lindahl Journal: Bioinformatics Date: 2013-02-13 Impact factor: 6.937
Authors: Javier M Hernandez; Alexander Stein; Elmar Behrmann; Dietmar Riedel; Anna Cypionka; Zohreh Farsi; Peter J Walla; Stefan Raunser; Reinhard Jahn Journal: Science Date: 2012-05-31 Impact factor: 47.728
Authors: Filip Savić; Torben-Tobias Kliesch; Sarah Verbeek; Chunxiao Bao; Jan Thiart; Alexander Kros; Burkhard Geil; Andreas Janshoff Journal: Biophys J Date: 2016-05-24 Impact factor: 4.033