Dusty Rose Miller1, Saurabh Das2, Kuo-Ying Huang3, Songi Han3, Jacob N Israelachvili2, J Herbert Waite3. 1. Biomolecular Science and Engineering Program, University of California , Santa Barbara, California 93106-9611, United States. 2. Department of Chemical Engineering, University of California , Santa Barbara, California 93106-5080, United States. 3. Department of Chemistry and Biochemistry, University of California , Santa Barbara, California 93106-9625, United States.
Abstract
The role of friction in the functional performance of biomaterial interfaces is widely reckoned to be critical and complicated but poorly understood. To better understand friction forces, we investigated the natural adaptation of the holdfast or byssus of mussels that live in high-energy surf habitats. As the outermost covering of the byssus, the cuticle deserves particular attention for its adaptations to frictional wear under shear. In this study, we coacervated one of three variants of a key cuticular component, mussel foot protein 1, mfp-1 [(1) Mytilus californianus mcfp-1, (2) rmfp-1, and (3) rmfp-1-Dopa], with hyaluronic acid (HA) and investigated the wear protection capabilities of these coacervates to surfaces (mica) during shear. Native mcfp-1/HA coacervates had an intermediate coefficient of friction (μ ∼0.3) but conferred excellent wear protection to mica with no damage from applied loads, F⊥, as high as 300 mN (pressure, P, > 2 MPa). Recombinant rmfp-1/HA coacervates exhibited a comparable coefficient of friction (μ ∼0.3); however, wear protection was significantly inferior (damage at F⊥ > 60 mN) compared with that of native protein coacervates. Wear protection of rmfp-1/HA coacervates increased 5-fold upon addition of the surface adhesive group 3,4-dihydroxyphenylalanine, (Dopa). We propose a Dopa-dependent wear protection mechanism to explain the differences in wear protection between coacervates. Our results reveal a significant untapped potential for coacervates in applications that require adhesion, lubrication, and wear protection. These applications include artificial joints, contact lenses, dental sealants, and hair and skin conditioners.
The role of friction in the functional performance of biomaterial interfaces is widely reckoned to be critical and complicated but poorly understood. To better understand friction forces, we investigated the natural adaptation of the holdfast or byssus of mussels that live in high-energy surf habitats. As the outermost covering of the byssus, the cuticle deserves particular attention for its adaptations to frictional wear under shear. In this study, we coacervated one of three variants of a key cuticular component, mussel foot protein 1, mfp-1 [(1) Mytilus californianus mcfp-1, (2) rmfp-1, and (3) rmfp-1-Dopa], with hyaluronic acid (HA) and investigated the wear protection capabilities of these coacervates to surfaces (mica) during shear. Native mcfp-1/HAcoacervates had an intermediate coefficient of friction (μ ∼0.3) but conferred excellent wear protection to mica with no damage from applied loads, F⊥, as high as 300 mN (pressure, P, > 2 MPa). Recombinant rmfp-1/HAcoacervates exhibited a comparable coefficient of friction (μ ∼0.3); however, wear protection was significantly inferior (damage at F⊥ > 60 mN) compared with that of native protein coacervates. Wear protection of rmfp-1/HAcoacervates increased 5-fold upon addition of the surface adhesive group 3,4-dihydroxyphenylalanine, (Dopa). We propose a Dopa-dependent wear protection mechanism to explain the differences in wear protection between coacervates. Our results reveal a significant untapped potential for coacervates in applications that require adhesion, lubrication, and wear protection. These applications include artificial joints, contact lenses, dental sealants, and hair and skin conditioners.
California
mussels (Mytilus californianus) live
sedentary lives along wind- and wave-swept shores where waves (with
velocities up to 25 m/sec) impose unrelenting lift and drag forces
that threaten mussel dislodgement.[1] Mussels
resist dislodgement via an adaptive, fibrous holdfast known as the
byssus (Figure a).
Byssal threads mitigate wave impact by dissipating up to 72% of the
applied wave energy, thereby mediating sessile attachment.[2] Friction is key to mediating energy dissipation;
yet understanding the underlying phenomena relating to energy dissipation
in friction is a long-standing and challenging issue in physical science.[3] Given the vast applications of friction, lubrication,
and wear protection, there is much interest in understanding and implementing
relevant design concepts from nature. California mussels are an excellent
model system for understanding adaptive mechanisms of energy dissipation
and friction under shear. A deeper understanding of the mussel byssal
attachment system continues to inspire new materials including adhesives,
coatings, and hydrogels.
Figure 1
M. californianus byssus. (a)
Mussel byssus mediates
modulus mismatch between the hard substrate and soft tissue in the
high-energy intertidal zone, where mussels are threatened with dislodgement
by lift, drag, and abrasion. (b) Transmission electron micrograph
of a longitudinal cross-section [zoom-in of the boxed area in panel
a] of the thread core and cuticle. As the outermost covering of the
byssus, the cuticle serves as a vanguard of resistance to three major
types of frictionally induced damage. Site 1: sand-cuticle frictional
damage. Site 2: core-cuticle frictional damage. Site 3: granule-matrix
frictional damage.
M. californianus byssus. (a)
Mussel byssus mediates
modulus mismatch between the hard substrate and soft tissue in the
high-energy intertidal zone, where mussels are threatened with dislodgement
by lift, drag, and abrasion. (b) Transmission electron micrograph
of a longitudinal cross-section [zoom-in of the boxed area in panel
a] of the thread core and cuticle. As the outermost covering of the
byssus, the cuticle serves as a vanguard of resistance to three major
types of frictionally induced damage. Site 1: sand-cuticle frictional
damage. Site 2: core-cuticle frictional damage. Site 3: granule-matrix
frictional damage.Although the majority
of the literature focuses on adhesive forces,
frictional forces arguably contribute more to holdfast performance.
For example, when a single attached byssal thread with a plaque is
pulled normal to the surface (e.g., lift), detachment resistance is
largely adhesive, whereas when pulled at low angles to the surface
(e.g., drag), detachment resistance is an order of magnitude greater
due to the added contribution of friction.[4] Mussels have adaptations at multiple length scales (nm–cm)
that utilize friction to dissipate energy.[5,6] These
adaptations include, but are not limited to, the radial distribution
of anchoring threads,[7,8] the spatulate morphology of plaques,[9] the stiff to compliant thread gradient,[10] the reversible plastic deformation of threads
in tension,[2,11] and an outer protective coating
called the cuticle composed of hard spherical granules (diam 0.2 to
1 μm) dispersed in a continuous compliant matrix.[12] Frictional forces, however, are highly context-dependent
and can also lead to stress concentration, damage, and catastrophic
failure.[13]As the outermost covering
of the byssus, the cuticle deserves particular
attention for its adaptations against three types of frictional damage:
(1) abrasion of the exterior surface by sand, (2) interface deformation
between the harder cuticle (E 2 GPa) and the softer collagenous core (E 0.4 GPa), and (3) deformation of the
matrix sliding between the granules[14] (Figure b). The cuticle is
remarkable for its ability to avoid catastrophic failure through microcracking[14] and reversible deformation.[2,10] In M. californianus, the cuticle is stiff (E 2 GPa) yet extensibile (120%), making
it one of the most energy tolerant materials known.[13,15]From a molecular perspective, the cuticle granules are preformed
by condensation of mussel foot protein-1 (mcfp-1) through extensive
Dopa-Fe3+-complexation in the accessory gland.[16] mcfp-1 is a highly modified, positively charged,
intrinsically unstructured protein with 72 decapeptide repeats of
the consensus sequence PKISYP**P*TY*K [where P* is hydroxyproline,
P** is dihydroxyproline, and Y* is dihydroxyphenylalanine (Dopa)].[17,18] Upon material secretion, the cuticle granules are coated by the
matrix, producing the dispersion evident in Figure b. The matrix consists of mcfp-1 and an acidic,
chymotrypsin-labile, Ca2+-binding protein.[13,19] These two polyelectrolytes in the matrix are thought to be delivered
as a complex coacervate.Coacervation is an emerging theme in
protein processing as used
by mussels, sandcastle worms, and caddisfly larvae to concentrate,
separate, and deposit polyelectrolytes underwater.[20,21] Complex coacervation relies on Coulombically driven interactions
between oppositely charged groups on distinct polyelectrolytes (polycations
and polyanions) to bring about phase separation, whereby the polyelectrolytes
become concentrated in a dense phase that settles on and coats surfaces
underwater.[22] In the mussel byssus, coacervates
are proposed to both deliver adhesive proteins (mfp-3s) and form the
cuticle matrix.As a tough and energy-dissipative material,
the cuticle provides
an excellent model of frictional wear protection. We therefore created
cuticle matrix mimics and used the surface forces apparatus (SFA)
to investigate friction and surface damage mitigation. We made matrix
mimics via complex coacervation of mcfp-1 (or its recombinant homologue)
and hyaluronic acid (HA), a readily available biopolymer that is acidic,
binds calcium, and has a mass that is well matched to that of mfp-1.[23,24] Coacervated mcfp-1/HA from M. californianus robustly
mitigated surface damage to mica, far surpassing (>4 fold) that
of
coacervated recombinant homologues and native mcfp-1/HAcoacervates
at uneven mixing ratios. During compressive shear, surface damage
mitigation was independent of the coefficient of friction but instead
depended critically on surface adhesive groups (Dopa) and coacervation
conditions. We propose that a surface adhesive layer protects the
surface from damage by shifting the shear slip-plane away from the
surface and into the bulk.[25] This exceptional
damage mitigation expands the role of complex coacervates in mussel
byssus from fluidic intermediates in material processing to a functional
structure with energy-dissipative and protective properties.
Results
Complex Coacervation of
Native mcfp-1 and
rmfp-1 with HA
We measured coacervate formation via solution
turbidity and transmittance at a wavelength of 600 nm. We observed
that mfp-1/HA coacervation was dependent on the polycation to polyanion
mixing ratio, pH, and ionic strength, I. At high
ionic strengths, long-range electrostatic interactions are typically
shielded (Debye length <1 nm). However, in mcfp-1/HAcoacervates
transient, solvent-mediated Coulombic interactions, responsible for
coacervate formation and stability, persisted at high ionic strengths
(mcfp-1/HA: I = 40–140 mM, Figure a). For mcfp-1/HAcoacervates,
turbidity plateaus at a maximum ranging from 40 to 140 mM in ionic
strength (Figure a),
whereas rmfp-1/HAcoacervates exhibit maximum turbidity at 10 mM ionic
strength, the lowest ionic strength tested. We measured turbidity
at different mixing ratios at an ionic strength with maximum turbidity
(10 mM for rmfp-1/HAcoacervates and 60 mM for mcfp-1/HAcoacervates).
Turbidity measurements at varying mixing ratios peak at a 1:1 weight-to-weight
mixing ratio, which corresponds to a 0.71:1 polycation-to-polyanion
charge ratio for both mcfp-1/HA and rmfp-1/HAcoacervates (Figure b and Materials and
Methods, section ). We performed rheology and tribology measurements at an ionic strength
with maximum turbidity (10 mM for rmfp-1/HAcoacervates and 60 mM
for mcfp-1/HAcoacervates) and at both optimal (1:1) mixing ratios
and suboptimal (7:3, and 3:7) mixing ratios with respect to coacervate
yield.
Figure 2
Coacervation dependence on ionic strength, I,
and polycation to polyanion mixing ratio. Turbidity via transmittance
at 600 nm wavelength indicates complex coacervate formation. (a) Ionic
strength dependence was measured at mixing ratios with maximum turbidity
(1:1 wt/wt mixing ratio of mfp-1/HA). (b) Mixing ratio dependence
was measured at an ionic strength with maximum turbidity (60 mM NaCl,
10 mM acetate buffer for mcfp-1/HA, and 10 mM acetate buffer for rmfp-1/HA
coacervates). Turbidity was measured 1 min post-mixing the polycation
and polyanion, at room temperature, in 10 mM acetic acid/sodium acetate,
and at the indicated pH. Data are presented as the mean and standard
deviation, n = 3.
Coacervation dependence on ionic strength, I,
and polycation to polyanion mixing ratio. Turbidity via transmittance
at 600 nm wavelength indicates complex coacervate formation. (a) Ionic
strength dependence was measured at mixing ratios with maximum turbidity
(1:1 wt/wt mixing ratio of mfp-1/HA). (b) Mixing ratio dependence
was measured at an ionic strength with maximum turbidity (60 mM NaCl,
10 mM acetate buffer for mcfp-1/HA, and 10 mM acetate buffer for rmfp-1/HAcoacervates). Turbidity was measured 1 min post-mixing the polycation
and polyanion, at room temperature, in 10 mM acetic acid/sodium acetate,
and at the indicated pH. Data are presented as the mean and standard
deviation, n = 3.Turbidity measures a metastable (time dependent) process.
Upon
mixing the polycation and polyanion, the turbidity increased due to
microdroplet formation (time = t = 0–0.25
min), after which turbidity was metastable (t = 0.25–20
min). Finally, turbidity decreased as microdroplets coalesced with
other microdroplets, settled on, and coated the cuvette surface (t = 20 min–2 d). Therefore, we measured turbidity
1 min post-mixing, well within this metastable regime.While
transmittance measurements are unable to distinguish precipitates
from coacervates, we confirmed a liquid coacervate phase by observing
spherical, dispersed microdroplets (Figure ).[26] Furthermore,
we confirmed a single, continuous coacervate phase by observing a
uniform refractive index between the two mica surfaces, creating smooth
Fringes of Equal Chromatic Order (FECO) in the Surface Forces Apparatus
(SFA) (Figure ).[24]
Figure 3
Bright field images of spherical coacervate microdroplets.
(a)
mcfp-1/HA (10 mM acetate buffer, pH 3.7, 60 mM NaCl, and 0.3 mg/mL),
(b) rmfp-1/HA (10 mM acetate buffer, pH 3.7, and 0.3 mg/mL), and (c)
rmfp-1-Dopa/HA (10 mM acetate buffer, pH 3.7, and 0.3 mg/mL). Images
were taken 5–10 min post-mixing. Darker and lighter spheres
are out-of-plane and in-plane droplets, respectively.
Figure 4
Experimental SFA setup and visualization of surface damage.
(a)
In this schematic, (1) coacervate was injected between two mica surfaces,
(2) then coalesced, settled on, and coated the mica surfaces, before
(3) the surface approach, for (4) normal and (5) shear measurements
(see Materials and Methods, section 5.5). Representative
(b) FECO and (c) Newton rings used to determine surface damage. Uninterrupted
(i) FECO and (iv) Newton rings at the start of the experiment indicated
a pristine surface, (ii) distorted fringes indicated the onset of
wear, and (iii) FECO and (v) Newton ring interruptions indicated severe
wear.
Bright field images of spherical coacervate microdroplets.
(a)
mcfp-1/HA (10 mM acetate buffer, pH 3.7, 60 mM NaCl, and 0.3 mg/mL),
(b) rmfp-1/HA (10 mM acetate buffer, pH 3.7, and 0.3 mg/mL), and (c)
rmfp-1-Dopa/HA (10 mM acetate buffer, pH 3.7, and 0.3 mg/mL). Images
were taken 5–10 min post-mixing. Darker and lighter spheres
are out-of-plane and in-plane droplets, respectively.Experimental SFA setup and visualization of surface damage.
(a)
In this schematic, (1) coacervate was injected between two mica surfaces,
(2) then coalesced, settled on, and coated the mica surfaces, before
(3) the surface approach, for (4) normal and (5) shear measurements
(see Materials and Methods, section 5.5). Representative
(b) FECO and (c) Newton rings used to determine surface damage. Uninterrupted
(i) FECO and (iv) Newton rings at the start of the experiment indicated
a pristine surface, (ii) distorted fringes indicated the onset of
wear, and (iii) FECO and (v) Newton ring interruptions indicated severe
wear.
Energy
Dissipation, Ed, and Interfacial Energy,
γeff, of mcfp-1/HA
and rmfp-1/HA Coacervates
We measured normal forces, F⊥, at varying distances, D, between two mica surfaces in the SFA with physisorbed coacervates
in the presence of bulk solution (schematic shown in Figure a). We then calculated the
adhesive/cohesion forces, Fad, using the
equation Fad = F⊥/R where R is the
radius of surface curvature. Smooth, continuous pull-outs in the Fad vs D plots imply dissipative-bridging
interactions. Integration of these pull-out curves quantifies the
dissipative energy, Ed.[27] We only observed dissipative-bridging interactions in coacervates
containing Dopa. mcfp-1/HAcoacervates demonstrated dissipative-bridging
interactions at all mixing ratios (mcfp-1/HA 1:1 ratio, Ed = 32 ± 15 mJ/m2; 7:3 ratio, 58 ±
53 mJ/m2; 3:7 ratio, 42 ± 12 mJ/m2, Figure a). We observed dissipative-bridging
interactions (Ed = 63 ± 18 mJ/m2) with rmfp-1-Dopa/HAcoacervates, whereas sharp jump-outs
(no dissipative-bridging interactions) were observed between surfaces
with rmfp-1/HAcoacervates lacking Dopa (Figure b).
Figure 5
Representative normal force, F⊥ (normalized by the radius of curvature R) as a
function of mica–mica separation distance, D. Comparison of (a) native- to recombinant-based coacervate adhesion/cohesion
profiles: mcfp-1/HA 1:1 ratio (black), rmfp-1/HA (blue), and rmfp-1-Dopa/HA
(red). Comparison of (b) mcfp-1/HA coacervate adhesion/cohesion profiles
at varying mixing ratios: mcfp-1/HA 7:3 ratio (teal), mcfp-1/HA 1:1
ratio (black), and mcfp-1/HA 3:7 ratio (purple). The hardwall is defined
as the minimum separation observed under compression for the given
normal force measurement. Forces measured on approach are indicated
by solid circles and on separation by open circles. Jump-out during
separation indicates mechanical instability, whereas dissipative-bridging
interactions indicate continuous interaction during separation.
Representative normal force, F⊥ (normalized by the radius of curvature R) as a
function of mica–mica separation distance, D. Comparison of (a) native- to recombinant-based coacervate adhesion/cohesion
profiles: mcfp-1/HA 1:1 ratio (black), rmfp-1/HA (blue), and rmfp-1-Dopa/HA
(red). Comparison of (b) mcfp-1/HAcoacervate adhesion/cohesion profiles
at varying mixing ratios: mcfp-1/HA 7:3 ratio (teal), mcfp-1/HA 1:1
ratio (black), and mcfp-1/HA 3:7 ratio (purple). The hardwall is defined
as the minimum separation observed under compression for the given
normal force measurement. Forces measured on approach are indicated
by solid circles and on separation by open circles. Jump-out during
separation indicates mechanical instability, whereas dissipative-bridging
interactions indicate continuous interaction during separation.The ability of a coacervate to
coat a surface depends critically
on its adhesion/cohesion energy, Ead,
and the interfacial energy, γeff. We calculated the
interfacial energy using the minimum Fad (maximum force required to separate the two surfaces) and the equation
γeff = Fad/3πR.[28] The interfacial energy of all coacervates tested
was low [7:3 mcfp-1/HA; γeff = 0.61 ± 0.41 mJ/m2, 3:7 mcfp-1/HA; γeff = 0.43 ± 0.37
mJ/m2, rmfp-1/HA; γeff = 0.34 ± 0.11
mJ/m2, and rmfp-1-Dopa/HA; γeff = 0.72
± 0.17 mJ/m2 (Figure a and b)]. Moreover, mcfp-1/HAcoacervates at a 1:1
mixing ratio had the lowest interfacial energy (γeff = 0.28 ± 0.08 mJ/m2) of all the coacervates tested.
Tribology and Rheology of mcfp-1/HA and rmfp-1/HA
Coacervates
We used the SFA to measure the lateral forces, F∥, to determine the tribological and
rheological properties of our coacervates. Here, wear protection is
as the maximum load, FD, that coacervate-coated
mica surfaces could withstand before splitting of the FECO idicated
shear-induced damage to the mica surface (Figure b). Neither mcfp-1 nor HA in uncoacervated
solution protected the surfaces from damage any more than the buffer
alone (surfaces were damaged ∼10 mN).[27,29] mcfp-1/HA (1:1) coacervates protected mica from damage, even at
the maximum applied load, FD of 300 mN
(corresponding to a pressure >2 MPa, Figure ). mcfp-1/HAcoacervates with uneven mixing
ratios failed to protect the mica surface at 4-fold lower loads (7:3
ratio, FD = 73 ± 53 mN; 3:7 ratio, FD = 53 ± 18 mN). rmfp-1-Dopa/HA protected
surfaces from wear under 5-fold higher loads (FD = 57 ± 18 mN) than recombinant coacervates without Dopa
(FD = 11 ± 3 mN, Figure ). All coacervate systems exhibited
a similar coefficient of friction (μ ∼ 0.3, Figure , inset) during shear,
save one: 7:3 mcfp-1/HA (μ = 0.5 ± 0.07). To investigate
reversibility, we increased the normal force which increased the lateral
force, F∥, linearly, and both forces
followed the same trajectory upon decreasing loads, even if the load
was increased past the point of damage.
Figure 6
Mfp-1/HA coacervates’
coefficient of friction (inset) and
damage mitigation, as demonstrated by the magnitude of load (FD) before shear-induced damage. Five different
mfp-1/HA coacervate systems are compared: mcfp-1/HA 7:3 ratio (teal),
1:1 ratio (black), and 3:7 ratio (purple) compared to rmfp-1-Dopa/HA
(red) and rmfp-1/HA (blue) ratios. Data are the means and standard
deviations for n = 3–4. Inset: Friction force
(F∥) vs normal load (F⊥) for native and recombinant coacervates. For
comparison, the coefficient of friction of rmfp-151/HA coacervates
(μ = 1.3)[24] and synovial fluid (μ
= 0.15)[28] from previous works have been
included. * Indicates where damage occurred (see inset).
Mfp-1/HAcoacervates’
coefficient of friction (inset) and
damage mitigation, as demonstrated by the magnitude of load (FD) before shear-induced damage. Five different
mfp-1/HAcoacervate systems are compared: mcfp-1/HA 7:3 ratio (teal),
1:1 ratio (black), and 3:7 ratio (purple) compared to rmfp-1-Dopa/HA
(red) and rmfp-1/HA (blue) ratios. Data are the means and standard
deviations for n = 3–4. Inset: Friction force
(F∥) vs normal load (F⊥) for native and recombinant coacervates. For
comparison, the coefficient of friction of rmfp-151/HAcoacervates
(μ = 1.3)[24] and synovial fluid (μ
= 0.15)[28] from previous works have been
included. * Indicates where damage occurred (see inset).
Discussion
Mussel
tenacity in the high-energy intertidal zone depends critically
on and is defined by the vagaries of friction. Friction mediates plaque
adhesion but also leads to abrasive damage to the byssus and catastrophic
failure. Mussel byssus attachment tenacity in the high-energy intertidal
zone depends critically on friction;[30,31] yet, friction
can also result in abrasive damage to the byssus and catastrophic
failure. The mussel byssus has adapted a hard cuticular coating to
resist frictional damage from sand particles and debris. However,
having a hard cuticle to confer wear resistance raises concerns about
other damage modes such as frictional damage within the cuticle between
the softer cuticle matrix and harder cuticle granules (Figure b).In this research,
we explored frictional damage mitigation by shearing
mfp-1/HA complex coacervates between two mica surfaces. Cuticle matrix-inspired
coacervates were composed of HA and one of three mfp-1 variants: (1) M. californianus mcfp-1, (2) rmfp-1, and (3) rmfp-1-Dopa.
We designed mfp-1/HA matrix-inspired blends to be injectable and deliverable
in a concentrated form underwater to coat and protect surfaces. mcfp-1/HAcoacervates exhibited excellent wear protection on mica with no damage
from applied loads, F⊥, as high
as 300 mN (pressure, P, > 2 MPa).[27,29,32] Recombinant proteins only partially
recapitulated
the wear protective effect: surfaces with rmfp-1/HAcoacervates were
damaged under 10-fold lower loads than surfaces with mcfp-1/HAcoacervates.
Coacervate surface wear protection was independent of the coefficient
of friction but dependent on Dopa and polycation to polyanion mixing
ratio. The wear protection in mcfp-1/HAcoacervates suggests that
retention of a fluidic component in the cuticular matrix may substantially
contribute to damage mitigation in the mussel byssus.We began
by investigating the conditions under which mfp-1/HAcoacervates.
We found that the degree of coacervation was dependent on salt concentration,
pH, and polyanion/polycation mixing ratio. When combined, mcfp-1 and
HA coacervated over a 10-fold range of salt concentrations, over the
tested pH range of 3.3–4.5, and across all tested polyelectrolyte
mixing ratios. Recombinant rmfp-1, both with and without Dopa, also
coacervated with HA but were more easily destabilized by salt than
the mcfp-1/HAcoacervates (Figure b). The greater salt tolerance of mcfp-1/HAcoacervates
may be due to the difference in molecular weight between the native
and recombinant proteins (MWmcfp-1 = 92KDa vs MWrmfp-1 = 14KDa). Nonetheless, both mcfp-1 and rmfp-1
coacervate systems delivered concentrated material underwater. To
our knowledge, this is the first report of a complex coacervate made
from native mussel foot proteins.Widespread use of complex
coacervates in coating and encapsulation
technologies for granules, drugs, and perfumes depends critically
on their adhesion/cohesion energy, Ead, and interfacial energy, γeff.[33] We investigated the adhesion/cohesion energy and the interfacial
energy to determine how thoroughly mfp-1/HAcoacervates coat surfaces.
Coacervates were injected as microdroplets into the SFA and allowed
to settle on and coat a mica surface. All tested mfp-1/HAcoacervates
adhered to mica (0.42 ± 0.12 < Ead < 1.08 ± 0.25 mJ/m2) and exhibited low interfacial
energy (0.28 ± 0.08 < γeff ≤ 0.72
± 0.17 mJ/m2 (Figure ). mcfp-1/HAcoacervate at a 1:1 mixing ratio had the
lowest interfacial energy (γeff = 0.28 ± 0.08
mJ/m2) of all the coacervate systems tested, exhibiting
the lowest γeff ever reported for liquid–liquid
separations.[33] Visual investigations confirmed
that all tested coacervates efficiently coated the surfaces (Figure ), making them well
suited for coating cuticle granules and encapsulation technologies.After coating the mica surface with the mfp-1/HAcoacervate, we
investigated frictional damage mitigation by exposing the coacervate-covered
mica surface to shear in the SFA. Here, wear protection is defined
as the maximum load, FD, that coacervate-coated
mica surfaces withstood before exhibiting shear-induced damage (Figure ). mcfp-1/HAcoacervate
mitigated frictional damage to mica surfaces, even under applied normal
loads of 300 mN (pressure, P > 2 MPa). rmfp-1/HAcoacervate achieved only a fraction of the wear protective effect;
shear induced damage with rmfp-1/HAcoacervate under 10-fold lower
loads than with mcfp-1/HAcoacervate. That coacervated native protein
dissipated energy and resisted frictional wear to surfaces suggest
that the cuticle matrix plays a crucial role in mitigating shear-induced
damage in the byssus (Figure ).We did not expect this damage mitigation because
all our coacervates
exhibited a comparatively high coefficient of friction, (μ =
0.3) (rmfp-151/HAcoacervate, μ = 1.3;[24] and synovial fluid, μ = 0.15[28]).
However, the coefficient of friction has increasingly been shown to
be an invalid measure of surface damage: several studies of lubricants
with a low coefficient of friction report poor wear protection to
mica surfaces and especially to biological tissues.[27,29,34] Our observation that mfp-1/HAcoacervates
with the same coefficient of friction (μ = 0.3) vary more than
10-fold in damage mitigation supports the notion that damage mitigation
is dependent on more than just the coefficient of friction; we found
that damage mitigation correlates to both polyanion-to-polycation
mixing ratio and surface adhesion.Mfps adhere readily to mica
surfaces through a combination of bidentate
hydrogen bonding of Dopa and electrostatic interactions between positively
charged lysine and negatively charged mica.[35] The recombinant protein lacks Dopa that can be added to the protein
to demonstrate the effect of surface adhesion to wear protection.
In the absence of Dopa, rmfp-1/HAcoacervate is unable to remain attached
to mica, allowing frictional stresses to act directly on the mica
surface, resulting in surface damage under low loads (FD < 10 mN, Figures and 7). Addition of Dopa in
rmfp-1 increased surface adhesion and protected the surfaces from
damage under 5-fold higher loads (FD <
60 mN) (Figures and 7). We propose that under compressive shear, mfp-1/HAcoacervates with Dopa (rmfp-1-Dopa/HA and mcfp-1/HA) undergo redistribution
where Dopa mediates adhesion between mfp-1 and mica. In this way,
the surfaces are protected from damage by shifting the slip-plane
up from the surface into the intervening coacervate layer, a reconfiguration
that has been described as incompressible “molecular ball bearings.”[25,36,37]
Figure 7
Schematic of the proposed wear protection
mechanism. Coacervates,
condensed by numerous transient electrostatic interactions between
lysine and carboxylate moieties (purple asterisk), (a) isotropically
distribute in the bulk solution and (b) distribute asymmetrically
under compressive shear with mfp-1 (yellow) preferentiality bound
to the surface. Adding Dopa to mfp-1 increases adhesion to mica (red
asterisk) and increases wear protection by shifting the slip-plane
away from the mica and into the intervening layer enriched with HA
(green).
Schematic of the proposed wear protection
mechanism. Coacervates,
condensed by numerous transient electrostatic interactions between
lysine and carboxylate moieties (purple asterisk), (a) isotropically
distribute in the bulk solution and (b) distribute asymmetrically
under compressive shear with mfp-1 (yellow) preferentiality bound
to the surface. Adding Dopa to mfp-1 increases adhesion to mica (red
asterisk) and increases wear protection by shifting the slip-plane
away from the mica and into the intervening layer enriched with HA
(green).To further investigate the mcfp-1/HAcoacervates, we adjusted the
polycation-to-polyanion mixing ratio (7:3 and 3:7) and found that
surface wear protection relied on the careful coordination of the
mixing ratio. Although mcfp-1/HAcoacervates at a 1:1 mixing ratio
protected the surfaces from damage at high loads, mcfp-1/HA coacervated
at suboptimal 7:3 and 3:7 mixing ratios weakly protected surfaces,
which were damaged under only a quarter of the applied load (Figures a and 5). In this instance, damage was not due to insufficient adhesion;
mcfp-1/HAcoacervates with an excess of mcfp-1 or HA had higher adhesion/cohesion
energies. Perhaps these molecules not involved in balanced electrostatic
interactions (coacervate formation) become entangled, allowing shear
forces to impact and damage the surface. The observation that as adhesion
increases, wear protection also increases up to a point suggests that
adhesion has an optimum for mitigating damage.Mussel byssal
cuticle toughness and durability is widely attributed
to covalent cross-links and Ca2+ and Fe3+ complexation.[16,38] However, our results raise the interesting possibility that maintaining
coacervates (fluid components), perhaps stabilized by microenvironments[39] in the cuticle matrix, could be adaptively beneficial
for damage control as well as self-healing since fluids spontaneously
self-heal. The excellent frictional damage mitigation by mcfp-1/HAcoacervates reveals a significant untapped potential for coacervates
in applications that require both adhesion and energy-dissipative
lubrication, such as artificial joints, contact lenses, dental sealants,
and hair and skin conditioners.
Conclusions
We delivered mussel cuticle matrix-inspired blends in a concentrated
form underwater as complex coacervates. They coated surfaces, dissipated
energy, and protected surfaces from wear. Damage mitigation was independent
of the coefficient of friction and dependent on surface adhesion and
coacervation conditions. On the basis of these results, we propose
that during compressive shear, coacervated mfp-1 and HA undergo redistribution
whereby Dopa mediates adhesion between mfp-1 and mica. The adhesive
layer protects the mica surface by shifting the slip-plane up from
the surface into the intervening coacervate layer. mcfp-1/HAcoacervates
exhibited exceptional surface damage mitigation against shear-induced
wear, suggesting that retention of a fluidic component in the cuticular
matrix may substantially contribute to damage mitigation in the mussel
byssus.
Materials and Methods
Purification of Native mcfp-1
We
purified native mcfp-1 as described previously,[40] with some modifications. We harvested mussels from the
pilings of Goleta Pier (Santa Barbara, CA) and held them in circulation
tanks. The mussels were shucked, and their feet were amputated and
stored at −70 °C before flaying off the pigmented epithelium.
Approximately 50 prepared feet were homogenized in four equivalents
(w/v) of 5% acetic acid (v/v), 10 μM leupeptin, 10 μM
pepstatin, and 1 mM ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid in a glass Kontes
tissue grinder (Vineland, NJ) on ice, then centrifuged at 20,000g and 4 °C for 40 min. The supernatant was acidified
to 1.5% (v/v) perchloric acid. After centrifugation at 20,000g and 4 °C for 40 min, the supernatant was dialyzed
for four rounds in 4 L of 5% acetic acid (v/v) for 4 h (1000 Da molecular
weight cutoff tubing from Spectrum Industries, Los Angeles, CA) before
lyophilization. Lyophilized protein was resuspended in 200 μL
of 5% acetic acid (v/v), and 50 μL aliquots were run through
a Shodex KW-803 size exclusion column (5 μm, 8 × 300 mm)
(Showa Denko, New York, NY). Fractions were monitored at 280 nm, and
those that absorbed were assessed for sample purity by acid-urea polyacrylamide
gel electrophoresis [7.5% acrylamide, 0.2% N,N-methylenebis(acrylamide), 5% acetic acid, and 8 M urea
gels then stained with Coomassie Blue R-250 (Sigma-Aldrich, Brooklyn,
NY)] and amino acid analysis. Pure mcfp-1 fractions were pooled and
aliquoted before lyophilization and stored at −70 °C for
future use.
Recombinant mfp-1 (rmfp-1)
and Enzymatic Modification
of rmfp-1 Tyrosine to Dopa
rmfp-1 was prepared as in Zheng
et al.[41] and was provided by D.S. Hwang
(Pohang University of Science and Technology University, Pohang, S.
Korea). rmfp-1 consisted of the sequence [AKPSYPPTYK]12 (with a point mutation Ser65 to Cys65). The
decapeptide repeat sequence of rmfp-1 is the same as that of the M. californianus decapeptide repeat sequence except that
the first three positions in the recombinant repeat sequence (AKP*)
correspond to the repetitive sequence found in M. galloprovincialis, which varies slightly from that of the M. californianus repeat (P*KI). Proteins having extensive internal repeat sequences
are not well tolerated by Escherichia coli, hence
the use of less than full-length versions here (MWrmfp-1 = 14KDa vs MWmfp-1 = 92KDa). Recombinant mfp-1
also has a lower molar Dopa content (∼18 vs 92 Dopa residues,
respectively) and lacks post-translational hydroxylation of prolines
seen in mcfp-1.Tyrosine (Tyr) to Dopa enzymatic modification
was done as before,[42] with some modifications.
rmfp-1 (1 mg) was dissolved in 1 mL of pH 7, 10 mM borate and 50 mM
phosphate-ascorbate buffer. After adding mushroom tyrosinase (0.3
mg, 3000 U/mg, Sigma-Aldrich), the solution was shaken for 4 h at
ambient room temperature and pressure. The reaction was stopped by
adding 40 μL of glacial acetic acid and then run through a reverse
phase high performance liquid chromatography column and eluted with
a linear gradient of acetonitrile. The eluent was monitored continuously
at 230 and 280 nm, and fractions containing protein were pooled and
lyophilized. Amino acid analysis of the final product indicated a
Tyr to Dopa conversion of ∼83% in rmfp-1 (further referred
to as rmfp-1-Dopa).
Coacervation of mfp-1 and
HA: Effects of Ionic
Strength, pH, and Mixing Ratio
We quantified coacervate yield
under different solution conditions via turbidimetric measurements.
Each solution was prepared by dissolving either mfp-1 or HA (0.3 mg/mL)
in sodium acetate buffer [10 mM at pH 3.7 or 4.7 and either 10 mM
NaCl (rmfp-1 and rmfp-1-Dopa) or 60 mM NaCl (mcfp-1)]. Because maximum
coacervation occurs with polymers of matching molecular weights,[43] rmfp-1 (14 kDa) was matched with a 35 kDa version
of HA, and mcfp-1 (92 kDa) was matched with a 76 kDa HA (Lifecore
Biomedical, Chaska, MN).For mixing ratio measurements, we added
HA (0.3 mg/mL) to a mfp-1 solution (0.3 mg/mL) at varying volume ratios
in sodium acetate/acetic acid buffer (pH 3.7). We investigated ionic
strength dependence by adjusting the NaCl concentration at a 1:1 weight
ratio of mfp-1 to HA (calculated charge ratio of 0.71:1 polycation
to polyanion for both mcfp-1/HA and rmfp-1/HAcoacervates using Lys
pKa= 10.5 and HA-COOH pKa= 2.9[44]) in sodium acetate/acetic
acid buffer (pH 3.7).
Microscopic Confirmation
of the Coacervate
Phase
We mixed mfp-1 and HA just prior to their injection
(<1 min) between a glass slide and coverslip separated by double-sided
tape. Light microscope images were taken with a Zeiss Axioplan microscope
equipped with an optronics macrofile CCD camera at 100× magnification
10 min postinjection to monitor coacervate formation.
Measuring Normal and Lateral Interactions
We measured
the normal and lateral forces as a function of the
separation distance, D, between surfaces using the
SFA as before[24,45,46] with some modifications. Mica was used because it provides a sensitive
testing ground for frictionally induced damage as it is unable to
endure shear stresses and therefore shows shear-induced damage under
low loads (F⊥ < 10 mN).[47] We prepared mica surfaces by manually cleaving
mica and then gluing a thin, freshly cleaved mica sheet (1–5
μm) onto a cylindrical silica disk (R ≈
2 cm) with thermoset epoxy resin (Epon 1004F). The two curved mica
surfaces were mounted in the SFA in a crossed-cylinder geometry, which
roughly corresponds to a sphere of radius R on a
flat surface based on the Derjaguin approximation. The bottom surface
was supported by a double cantilever spring from which the normal
forces were measured and connected to a piezoelectric bimorph slider
for shear measurements. Mica–mica separation distances (D) were measured by multiple beam interferometry[48] with Å level distance resolution by first
measuring the mica–mica contact distance, D = 0, in air and using it as a reference distance for all other measurements.We mixed mfp-1 (0.3 mg/mL) and HA (0.3 mg/mL) less than 1 min prior
to injecting 50–100 μL of the mixture between the two
mica surfaces in the SFA where the mfp-1/HAcoacervate coalesced,
settled on, and coated the mica surface (30 min, Figure ). Alternatively, coacervates
may be premixed and used in their dense phase; however, this increases
time requirements and results in material loss. The force of adhesion
(Fad) was used to calculate the interfacial
energy (γeff = Fad/3πR)
[the energy required for a coacervate and create new, solvent (equilibrium
phase) exposed surface][33] and the interaction
(adhesion/cohesion) energy (by the Derjaguin approximation, W = Fad/2πR).We sheared the surfaces at a sliding velocity
of 10–100
μm/s with a friction device.[45] The
coefficient of friction (μ) is defined as the slope of F∥ versus F⊥ plot. Aberrations in the FECO and Newton rings indicated damage
to the mica surface (Figure ). The SFA allows for verification of a continuous coacervate
coating. For every experiment, we confirmed a continuous coacervate
coating of the surface through continuity of the FECO and measured
the normal and lateral forces without sample disruption. All SFA experiments
were performed at room temperature (thermostated at 23 °C).
Authors: Dong Soo Hwang; Hongbo Zeng; Aasheesh Srivastava; Daniel V Krogstad; Matthew Tirrell; Jacob N Israelachvili; J Herbert Waite Journal: Soft Matter Date: 2010-07-21 Impact factor: 3.679
Authors: Niels Holten-Andersen; Georg E Fantner; Sophia Hohlbauch; J Herbert Waite; Frank W Zok Journal: Nat Mater Date: 2007-07-08 Impact factor: 43.841
Authors: Daniel G DeMartini; John M Errico; Sebastian Sjoestroem; April Fenster; J Herbert Waite Journal: J R Soc Interface Date: 2017-06 Impact factor: 4.118
Authors: Mintai P Hwang; Xiaochu Ding; Jin Gao; Abhinav P Acharya; Steven R Little; Yadong Wang Journal: Soft Matter Date: 2018-01-17 Impact factor: 3.679
Authors: Ilia Kaminker; Wei Wei; Alex M Schrader; Yeshayahu Talmon; Megan T Valentine; Jacob N Israelachvili; J Herbert Waite; Songi Han Journal: Soft Matter Date: 2017-12-13 Impact factor: 3.679