The encapsulation of proteins into complex coacervate core micelles (C3Ms) is of potential interest for a wide range of applications. To address the stability and dynamic properties of these polyelectrolyte complexes, combinations of cyan, yellow, and blue fluorescent proteins were encapsulated with cationic-neutral diblock copolymer poly(2-methyl-vinyl-pyridinium)128- b-poly(ethylene-oxide)477. Förster resonance energy transfer (FRET) allowed us to determine the kinetics of C3M formation and of protein exchange between C3Ms. Both processes follow first-order kinetics with relaxation times of ±100 s at low ionic strength ( I = 2.5 mM). Stability studies revealed that 50% of FRET was lost at I = 20 mM, pointing to the disintegration of the C3Ms. On the basis of experimental and theoretical considerations, we propose that C3Ms relax to their final state by association and dissociation of near-neutral soluble protein-polymer complexes. To obtain protein-containing C3Ms suitable for applications, it is necessary to improve the rigidity and salt stability of these complexes.
The encapsulation of proteins into complex coacervate core micelles (C3Ms) is of potential interest for a wide range of applications. To address the stability and dynamic properties of these polyelectrolyte complexes, combinations of cyan, yellow, and blue fluorescent proteins were encapsulated with cationic-neutral diblock copolymer poly(2-methyl-vinyl-pyridinium)128- b-poly(ethylene-oxide)477. Förster resonance energy transfer (FRET) allowed us to determine the kinetics of C3M formation and of protein exchange between C3Ms. Both processes follow first-order kinetics with relaxation times of ±100 s at low ionic strength ( I = 2.5 mM). Stability studies revealed that 50% of FRET was lost at I = 20 mM, pointing to the disintegration of the C3Ms. On the basis of experimental and theoretical considerations, we propose that C3Ms relax to their final state by association and dissociation of near-neutral soluble protein-polymer complexes. To obtain protein-containing C3Ms suitable for applications, it is necessary to improve the rigidity and salt stability of these complexes.
The encapsulation of
proteins is important in many applications,
such as the controlled delivery of functional ingredients in foods,
medical formulations, industrial enzymatic processes, and protein
storage. In all cases, adequate encapsulation is required while keeping
the bioactivity or functionality intact. Micelles composed of polyelectrolyte
complexes, so-called complex coacervate core micelles (C3Ms), are
promising structures for protein protection, stabilization, and controlled
delivery.[1−6] C3Ms are simple to prepare by mixing protein solutions with oppositely
charged diblock copolymer solutions in stoichiometric charge ratios.[7,8] Micellar structures are then spontaneously formed and are small
enough to remain in solution. The inner core of C3Ms has a high loading
capacity; hundreds of protein molecules can be incorporated into one
micelle.[1] The micellar core provides a
relatively water-rich environment, thereby shielding protein molecules
from the bulk solution while protein structure and functionality are
preserved and any immune response is reduced. Because the formation
of C3Ms is driven by electrostatic interactions, contributed by Coulombic
attraction and entropic counterion release,[9−11] the pH and
ionic strength strongly influence the formation, dynamics, and stability
of these structures.While the structure and morphology of C3Ms
have been the subject
of many studies, the stability and dynamic aspects of micelles and
the exchange of molecules between individual C3Ms have been scarcely
investigated. In 1998, Cohen Stuart and co-workers were the first
to study the rate of formation of C3Ms, composed of poly((dimethylamino)ethyl-methacrylate)-co-poly(glyceryl-methacrylate) (PDMAEMA-co-PGMA) and poly(acrylic-acid)158 (PAA158), using dynamic light scattering.[7] They
found that micelle formation took place on time scales of 0.01 to
100 s depending on the ionic strength. Before equilibrium was reached,
a relatively high transient turbidity was found, which they attributed
to macroscopic phase separation (the formation of transient large
aggregates) on short time scales (<1 ms), after which the dense
phase rearranges into C3Ms. A corresponding molecular model was tested
using self-consistent field theory.[12] Similar
results were found by Hofs et al.[13] for
C3Ms consisting of poly([4-(2-aminoethylthio)butylene]hydrochloride)49-b-poly(ethylene-oxide)212 (PAETB49-b-PEO212) and poly(acrylic-acid) (PAA) of various lengths. For the formation
of C3Ms from poly((methacryloyloxyethyl)trimethylammonium
chloride)530 (PMOTAC530) and poly(ethylene
oxide)113-b-poly(methacrylic
acid)122 or 294 (PEO113-b-PMAA122 or 294) at an ionic strength
of 10 mM, Holappa et al.[14] found two processes
occurring on different time scales: a process with a kinetic coefficient
of 0.0126 s–1, which was attributed to the “insertion
and expulsion” of single chains, and a slow process with a
kinetic coefficient of 7.77 × 10–5 s–1, which was attributed to the “merging and splitting”
of C3Ms. The final equilibrium state of C3Ms was reached only after
about 16 h. The authors discussed their findings in terms of a model
that was introduced by Dormidontova[15] describing
the micellization of polymeric surfactants (hydrophilic–hydrophobic
block copolymers). Zhang et al.[16] also
referred to this model for the formation of their C3Ms in deionized
water composed of poly(ethylene-oxide)113-b-poly(sodium-4-styrene-sulfonate)47 (PEO113-b-PSSNa47) and poly(ethylene-oxide)113-b-poly(quaternized-2-(dimethylamino)ethyl-methacrylate)48 (PEO113-b-PQDMA48). They observed a fast relaxation process (within 2.6 ms), which
they related to initial quasi-equilibrium complex formation. A slower
process (within 0.4 s) was attributed to structural rearrangements
leading to final equilibrium complexes and was supposed to proceed
through a micelle fusion–fission mechanism. Very long relaxation
times were reported by Lindhoud et al.[4] for two different protein-containing three-component C3Ms, i.e.,
PAA42-b-PAAm417/PDMAEMA150/lysozyme (poly(acrylic-acid)42-b-poly(acyl-amide)417 and poly(N,N-dimethylaminoethyl-methacrylate)150, respectively) and P2MVP41-b-PEO205/PAA139/α-lactalbumin (poly(2-methyl-vinyl-pyridinium-iodide)41-b-poly(ethylene-oxide)205 and poly(acrylic-acid)139, respectively),
at low ionic strength. For lysozyme-containing C3Ms, a relaxation
time of 2 days was found, while C3Ms containing α-lactalbumin
did not reach equilibrium in their experiment of 2 weeks. Differences
in relaxation behavior were explained from the diversity in molecular
properties, in particular, the nature of used polyelectrolytes: weak
or strong. The authors pointed to the possible advantage of quenched
systems in which over longer periods no rearrangements in micelles
occur so that proteins are really trapped and cannot leave them.Most of the studies mentioned above concern the dynamics of C3Ms
formed by the coacervation of two polyelectrolyte chains. Only the
systems of Lindhoud et al. involved protein-containing C3Ms, which
is also the focus of this article.[17] Understanding
the dynamics and stability of protein-containing C3Ms under different
conditions is crucial for designing functional protein-containing
micellar structures. In the present study, Förster resonance
energy transfer (FRET) between mTurquoise2 (a cyan fluorescent protein)
and SYFP2 (strongly enhanced yellow fluorescent protein 2) was used
to study the kinetics of formation of C3Ms, the dynamics of protein
exchange between these structures, and their salt stability. An important
difference with the protein-containing structures described by Lindhoud
et al. is that no homopolymer with the same charge sign as the protein
is incorporated in C3Ms.[17] As a result,
many more protein molecules can be accommodated in one micelle (several
hundred instead of about 10), while the micellar structures are much
more dynamic.Previously, we have compared the degree of encapsulation
of a range
of Aequorea victoria (AV)- and Anthozoa-derived fluorescent proteins (FPs) and the effect
on their spectral properties.[17] The encapsulation
of these FPs was established with the use of cationic-neutral diblock
copolymer poly(2-methyl-vinyl-pyridinium)128-b-poly(ethylene-oxide)477 (P2MVP128-b-PEO477), which is also used in the present
study. Furthermore, for most of the FPs, including the three AV-derived FPs used in the present study, encapsulation
was performed at pH 9, at which they have a negative charge of 9–11.
On the basis of similar preferred micellar compositions (PMCs (∼0.7)),
C3M sizes (∼34.5 nm), and encapsulation efficiencies (∼100%),
we concluded that all AV-derived FPs are encapsulated
in the same way and with the same affinity. The results further showed
that mTurquoise2 and SYFP2 are the best candidates for FRET studies
regarding the dynamics of C3Ms. For both mTurquoise2 and SYFP2, encapsulation
in C3Ms resulted in only minor changes in fluorescence properties.
Next to that, mTurquoise2 has a high quantum yield (ΦmTurquoise2 = 0.93) and SYFP2 has a high extinction coefficient (εSYFP2,515nm = 101 000 M–1 cm–1).[18,19] Therefore, we have selected these two FPs
for the present study, while SBFP2 (strongly enhanced blue fluorescent
protein 2) was used as an invisible protein substitute to lower the
fluorescence signal of interest while keeping the total protein concentration
constant.[17]On the basis of the results
of the presented kinetic FRET experiments
in this study, we propose a model to describe the formation and relaxation
of protein-containing C3Ms. To roughly quantify the Gibbs energy of
C3M formation using this model, we take the number of proteins encapsulated
in one micelle as 450 and the critical micelle concentration (CMC)
at the PMC as 100 nM protein, as previously found for enhanced green
fluorescent protein (EGFP),[1] which is an AV-derived FP as well. The obtained insights also allow
us to develop strategies for generating a tunable stability of micelles
for different applications.
Experimental Section
Materials
Poly(2-vinylpyridine)128-b-poly(ethylene-oxide)477 (P2VP128-b-PEO477, Polymer Source Inc.,
Canada, Mw/Mn = 1.10, M = 34.5 kg/mol)
was quaternized following a procedure described elsewhere.[1] For P2MVP128-b-PEO477 (M = 50.8
kg/mol), a final degree of quaternization of approximately 87% was
obtained, implying that the polymer bears approximately 112 positive
charges. A stock solution of P2MVP128-b-PEO477 (50 μM) was prepared by dissolving the polymer
in 10 mM borate buffer (pH 9.0), and the solution was stored at −20
°C. All solutions were filtered through 0.20 μm poly(ether
sulfone) membrane syringe filters (Advanced Microdevices Pvt. Ltd.,
Ambala Cantt, India). All other chemicals were from commercial sources
and of the purest grade available.
Protein Production
The genes of mTurquoise2 and SYFP2-His
were cloned into bacterial expression vector pTYB12 (New England Biolabs
Inc., Ipswich, MA, USA) to generate FP fusions with a chitin-binding
domain and an intein.[20−22] The cDNA of SBFP2 in a pRSETb vector was kindly provided
by Dr. Joachim Goedhart, University of Amsterdam.[23] For protein production, E. coli BL21 cells
were used. Details on protein production and purification are described
elsewhere.[2] After on-column cleavage, mTurquoise2
and SYFP2-His were acquired without the chitin-binding domain. SBFP2
and SYFP2 still contained the His tag after purification. Purified
protein stock solutions of mTurquoise2 (21.7 μM), SYFP2 (29.5
μM), and SBFP2 (35.5 μM) were stored in 10 mM borate buffer
(pH 9.0) at 4 °C.Protein concentrations were determined
with a Pierce BCA protein assay (Pierce Biotechnology, Rockford, IL,
USA) using a bovine serum albumin standard as a reference. The purity
of all fluorescent proteins was checked by SDS-PAGE.
Absorption
and Steady-State Fluorescence Spectroscopy
Absorption spectra
of 1 μM SBFP2, mTurquoise2, or SYFP2 in
10 mM borate buffer (pH 9.0) were recorded on a Hewlett-Packard 8453
diode array spectrophotometer at 20 °C. Spectrophotometer settings
were controlled using the UV–visible ChemStation software package
(Hewlett-Packard, Palo Alto, CA, USA).Steady-state fluorescence
spectra were recorded on a Cary Eclipse spectrofluorimeter (Varian
Inc., Middelburg, The Netherlands). Excitation and emission slits
were set to yield bandwidths of 5 nm. Samples were measured in 1 mL
quartz cuvettes with a path length of 1 cm. Fluorescence emission
spectra of 1 μM mTurquoise2 and SYFP2 in 10 mM borate buffer
(pH 9.0) were separately measured at excitation wavelengths of 440
and 490 nm, respectively. FRET was determined by using fluorescence
intensities from donor (475 nm) and acceptor channels (527 nm, Figure ). For the FRET experiments,
fluorescence emission spectra were obtained using an excitation wavelength
of 440 nm, and emission was recorded between 450 and 600 nm. All measurements
and incubations prior to the measurements were performed at 20 °C.
Figure 1
Normalized
absorption spectra of SBFP2 (blue line), mTurquoise2
(cyan solid line), and SYFP2 (orange solid line) and fluorescence
emission spectra of mTurquoise2 (cyan dashed line) and SYFP2 (orange
dashed line). The listed wavelengths at the top of the graph indicate
the following from left to right: excitation wavelength of mTurquoise2
(donor excitation), emission wavelength of mTurquoise2 (donor channel),
and emission wavelength of SYFP2 (acceptor channel). The green area
indicates the spectral overlap between mTurquoise2 and SYFP2.
Normalized
absorption spectra of SBFP2 (blue line), mTurquoise2
(cyan solid line), and SYFP2 (orange solid line) and fluorescence
emission spectra of mTurquoise2 (cyan dashed line) and SYFP2 (orange
dashed line). The listed wavelengths at the top of the graph indicate
the following from left to right: excitation wavelength of mTurquoise2
(donor excitation), emission wavelength of mTurquoise2 (donor channel),
and emission wavelength of SYFP2 (acceptor channel). The green area
indicates the spectral overlap between mTurquoise2 and SYFP2.
C3M Preparations
In general, the encapsulation of FPs
with polymers into C3Ms was achieved by first diluting fluorescent
protein stock solutions in 10 mM borate buffer (pH 9.0) to a final
protein concentration of 1 μM and a FRET pair composition of
1:1 (mTurquoise2/SYFP2), followed by the addition of polymer to a
final concentration of 0.18 μM. C3Ms were prepared at a F+ ratio of 0.70, which is the PMC at pH 9.0
of proteins with diblock copolymerP2MVP128-b-PEO477.[17] The PMC is expressed
as F+ = [n+]/([n+] + [n–]), with [n+] = c+N+ referring to the total concentration
of positively charged groups on the polymer and [n–] = c–N– being the total concentration of negatively
charged groups on the protein molecules.The net charges of
FPs as a function of pH were calculated using the PROPKA 3.1 software
package .[24,25] At pH 9.0, the charges (N–) of SBFP2, mTurqouise2, and SYFP2 are −8.96,
−11.30, and −9.75, respectively, which are used to calculate
[n–].
Equilibrium States of C3Ms
with Differing FRET Pair Amounts
Protein solutions with different
amounts of the FRET pair were
obtained by varying the FRET pair/SBFP2 ratio between 0.1 and 1.0.
C3Ms were formed by mixing the protein solution with an aliquot of
a stock solution of P2MVP128-b-PEO477. The resulting solutions were left to equilibrate for 3
h prior to recording the fluorescence emission spectra.
Formation of
C3Ms
A protein solution of a 50% FRET
pair was prepared (25% mTurquoise2, 25% SYFP2, and 50% SBFP2) to follow
the formation of C3Ms at the PMC. An equilibrated protein solution
and an aliquot of a stock solution of P2MVP128-b-PEO477 were mixed rapidly in a quartz cuvette
and placed in a fluorescence spectrophotometer sample compartment.
Fluorescence emission spectra were recorded with a time interval of
30 s. The obtained data set was fitted using IGOR Pro 6.11 (Wavemetrics,
Inc., Lake Oswego, OR, USA).
Protein Exchange between C3Ms
Two
separate C3M solutions
were prepared, one with mTurquoise2-C3Ms and one with SYFP2-C3Ms but
both with varying amounts of SBFP2, so that after mixing the final
FRET pair/SBFP2 ratios varied between 0.20 and 0.50. The C3M solutions
were left to equilibrate for 3 h prior to the measurement. To follow
the protein exchange between C3Ms, equilibrated solutions of mTurquoise2-C3Ms
and SYFP2-C3Ms with the same SBFP2 amounts were mixed rapidly in a
quartz cuvette and placed in the fluorescence spectrophotometer sample
compartment. Fluorescence emission spectra were recorded with a time
interval of 30 s. The obtained data were fitted using global analysis
with IGOR Pro 6.11.
Salt Titration of C3Ms
To test the
salt stability of
protein-containing C3Ms, first a solution of C3Ms containing a 50%
FRET pair was prepared at the PMC. Next, by the addition of small
aliquots of a 500 mM NaCl solution, the NaCl concentration was gradually
changed from 0 (initial) to 37.0 (final) mM, corresponding to an ionic
strength change from 2.5 to 39.5 mM. To determine the dilution effect
of the addition of NaCl, a control experiment was performed by adding
corresponding volumes of 10 mM borate buffer (pH 9.0) to preformed
50% FRET pair C3Ms. Fluorescence emission spectra were recorded at
the start of the experiment and after every addition of NaCl or buffer.
Dynamic Light Scattering
Dynamic light scattering (DLS)
measurements were performed on an ALV instrument equipped with a 22
mW Uniphase model 1145P HeNe laser operating at 632.8 nm and an ALV/Dual
High QE ADP detector unit with a fiber splitting device for two detectors
connected to an external ALV7004 multiple tau digital correlator (ALV-Laser
Vertriebsgesellschaft m-b.H., Langen, Germany). The detection angle,
θ, was set at 90°, and all measurements were performed
at 20 °C.For the determination of the salt stability of
C3Ms, 500 μL solutions of 50% FRET pair C3Ms were prepared at
the PMC. NaCl concentrations ranging from 0 (initial) to 37.0 mM (final)
were obtained upon addition from a stock solution, corresponding to
an ionic strength change from 2.5 to 39.5 mM.DLS autocorrelation
curves were generated from 10 individual intensity
traces and averaged. The CONTIN method[26,27] was used to
analyze the distribution of the radii of the C3Ms. The data were analyzed
with the AfterALV data analysis software program (AfterALV 1.0d, Dullware,
The Netherlands).
FRET Data Analysis
FRET is a spectroscopic
phenomenon
that is applied in different research disciplines to study (bio)molecular
interactions.[28,29] This phenomenon involves nonradiative
energy transfer from a fluorescent donor to an acceptor and can take
place only if the following three prerequisites are met: (1) there
is an overlap between donor fluorescence emission and acceptor excitation
spectra, (2) the distance between both fluorophores is in the range
of 1–10 nm, and (3) there is an appropriate orientation of
the dipole moments of both fluorophores. These three conditions determine
the propensity of energy transfer, which is reported as FRET efficiency.
Most fluorescent proteins emit in the visible spectrum and have overlapping
spectra and therefore are widely used for FRET experiments.[30,31] The most effective combination for FRET is the pair formed by cyan
(CFP) and yellow (YFP) fluorescent proteins.C3Ms containing
mTurquoise2 and SYFP2 display FRET, which is demonstrated in Figure (red solid line),
showing that the fluorescence emission of SYFP2 takes place upon excitation
of mTurquoise2 (excitation at 440 nm, Figure ). Furthermore, steady-state fluorescence
data in Figure shows
that in FRET experiments the cross-talk of mTurquoise2, i.e., the
fluorescence emission of the donor at 527 nm, and direct excitation
of SYFP2 at 440 nm occur. Both contributions were taken into account
for the calculation of the overall FRET. The ratio of the SYFP2 to
mTurquoise2 fluorescence intensities (RFRET) is expressed aswith f being the measured fluorescence intensity
in the acceptor channel upon donor excitation, which is corrected
for spectral cross-talk and direct excitation of the acceptor, and f being
the measured fluorescence intensity in the donor channel after donor
excitation, which is corrected for detection efficiencies of the dyes
following a procedure described elsewhere.[32] Both corrected parameters are also used to calculate the transfer
efficiency, E:The Förster
radius is calculated usingandwhere ΦD is the donor quantum yield in the absence
of an acceptor (ΦmTurquoise2 = 0.93), n is the refractive index of the intervening solution (n = 1.41),[2] which was calculated from the
change in fluorescence lifetimes of EGFP and mEGFP molecules inside
the core of the micelles compared to that of the proteins free in
solution, and κ2 is the orientation factor describing
the relative orientation of the transition dipoles of donor and acceptor
(κ2 = 0.475).[33,34] The overlap integral, J, is a function of the wavelength, λ, and is calculated
using fD(λ) and εA(λ) as the wavelength-dependent emission spectrum of the donor
and the wavelength-dependent molecular extinction coefficient of the
acceptor (εSYFP2,515nm = 101 000 M–1 cm–1), respectively.
Figure 2
Steady-state fluorescence
emission spectra of mixed C3Ms containing
mTurquoise2 and SYFP2 (red solid line), of mixed mTurquoise2 and SYFP2
free in solution (blue solid line), of mTurquoise2 in C3Ms (cyan dashed
line), and of SYFP2 in C3Ms (orange dashed line). Proteins are at
equimolar concentrations with a total concentration of 1 μM,
and excitation was at 440 nm.
Steady-state fluorescence
emission spectra of mixed C3Ms containing
mTurquoise2 and SYFP2 (red solid line), of mixed mTurquoise2 and SYFP2
free in solution (blue solid line), of mTurquoise2 in C3Ms (cyan dashed
line), and of SYFP2 in C3Ms (orange dashed line). Proteins are at
equimolar concentrations with a total concentration of 1 μM,
and excitation was at 440 nm.For the calculation of the Förster radius, R0, between mTurquoise2 and SYFP2 in the micelles,
we used
some results from our previous work.[17] The
emission spectrum of encapsulated mTurquoise2 and the excitation spectrum
of encapsulated SYFP2 were used in eq . In eq , a refractive index of 1.41 for the micellar core was used, which
was determined from the decrease in fluorescence lifetimes upon encapsulation
of EGFP and mEGFP.[2] Furthermore, a κ2 value of 0.475 was used because the fluorescent proteins
are restricted in their movement inside the C3Ms.[33,34] On the basis of these values, a Förster radius of 53.4 Å
was calculated for mTurquoise2 and SYFP2 inside the C3Ms. Herewith,
the second prerequisite of FRET is met. Furthermore, a Förster
radius of 53.4 Å is larger than the dimensions of an FP, which
are 24 Å in diameter and 42 Å in height.[35,36]
Gibbs Energy of Association of C3Ms as a Function of Ionic Strength
The protein-containing C3Ms display salt-dependent association/dissociation
behavior, which follows an apparent two-state equilibrium process
(Supporting Information). Therefore, the
equilibrium can be described aswith its corresponding equilibrium constantThe shift in the equilibrium toward
the dissociation of the C3Ms upon increasing the ionic strength is
due to the screening of the electrostatic interactions between the
negatively charged proteins and the positively charged diblock copolymers.
At sufficiently high salt concentrations, FRET will not take place
because the micelles have fallen apart and the distance between the
FPs is large, resulting in high donor and low acceptor fluorescence
intensities. At low salt concentration, the C3Ms are stable and thus
the FPs are in close proximity, which leads to a high FRET efficiency.The increase in the donor fluorescence intensity and the corresponding
decrease in the acceptor fluorescence intensity display sigmoidal
behavior as a function of ionic strength. Figure
S4 shows the ionic strength dependence of these fluorescence
intensities, normalized between their minimum and maximum values.
We calculated Kassociation at each ionic
strength from the normalized fluorescence intensities of the donor
and acceptor and its increase and decrease, respectively, compared
to the start of the salt titration (0 mM NaCl). These normalized fluorescence
intensities are proportional to the concentration of C3Ms and the
concentration of dissociated C3Ms, respectively.The Gibbs energy
of association (ΔGassociation0) of
C3Ms was calculated at each salt concentration by applying eq with gas constant R and absolute
temperature T. A plot of ΔGassociation0 against ionic strength, I, yields a straight line
according towhere ΔGassociation,water0 is the Gibbs energy of C3M formation at zero ionic strength and m is the slope of the line.
Results
FRET Efficiency
in C3Ms with Varying FRET Pair Concentrations
Figure shows the
fluorescence emission spectra of equimolar amounts of mTurquoise2
and SYFP2 free in solution as well as encapsulated in C3Ms upon excitation
at 440 nm. Encapsulating mTurquoise2 and SYFP2 together in C3Ms yields
a strong reduction of the donor fluorescence intensity and the sensitized
emission of SYFP2. In these experiments, the concentrations of fluorescent
proteins are the same, and from the reduction of fluorescence intensity
of mTurquoise2, a FRET efficiency of about 90% was estimated.To determine the FRET efficiency at different FRET pair concentrations
in C3Ms, SBFP2 was used to change the FRET pair amount in a C3M by
replacing both mTurquoise2 and SYFP2 while keeping the final protein
concentration constant. Because SBFP2 has a charge distribution that
is similar to those of mTurquoise2 and SYFP2 and a similar value for
its PMC (0.70) and it does not absorb light at 440 nm (Figure ), it has been used as an “invisible”
protein substitute.[17]Figure A shows fluorescence emission
spectra for C3M solutions with different FRET pair amounts consisting
of 1 μM total protein and 0.18 μM polymer. Clearly, a
FRET pair amount of 10% already shows energy transfer in C3Ms between
mTurquoise2 and SYFP2. At increasing FRET pair amounts, the donor
fluorescence intensity further decreases and the acceptor fluorescence
intensity increases. Related ratio RFRET (eq ) increases in
an almost linear fashion for increasing FRET pair amounts (Figure S1). The corresponding FRET efficiency
(eq ) follows an asymptotic
curve, reaching a maximum of ∼0.90 for a FRET pair amount of
100% (Figure B). The
correlation of RFRET with the FRET pair
content in C3Ms (Figure S1) confirms that
all three proteins have similar interactions with the diblock copolymer.
When the interactions of the FPs with the copolymer are significantly
different, this could lead to an unbalanced uptake of the FRET pair
proteins, which would be reflected in a nonlinear increase in FRET
with increasing FRET pair amounts.
Figure 3
Normalized fluorescence intensities of
the mTurquoise2 and SYFP2
FRET pair in C3Ms at different FRET pair amounts (10 to 100%: FRET
pair/SBFP2 ratio) upon donor excitation (440 nm). The total protein
concentration was kept at 1 μM using SBFP2 to replace both mTurquoise2
and SYFP2 to keep the FRET pair composition constant at 1:1 (mTurquoise2/SYFP2)
and change the FRET pair amount in the C3Ms. The concentration of
P2MVP128-b-PEO477 was 0.18
μM. (A) Fluorescence emission spectra at different FRET pair
amounts (normalized at 517 nm). (B) FRET efficiency as a function
of the FRET pair amount. The solid line is a guide to the eye.
Normalized fluorescence intensities of
the mTurquoise2 and SYFP2
FRET pair in C3Ms at different FRET pair amounts (10 to 100%: FRET
pair/SBFP2 ratio) upon donor excitation (440 nm). The total protein
concentration was kept at 1 μM using SBFP2 to replace both mTurquoise2
and SYFP2 to keep the FRET pair composition constant at 1:1 (mTurquoise2/SYFP2)
and change the FRET pair amount in the C3Ms. The concentration of
P2MVP128-b-PEO477 was 0.18
μM. (A) Fluorescence emission spectra at different FRET pair
amounts (normalized at 517 nm). (B) FRET efficiency as a function
of the FRET pair amount. The solid line is a guide to the eye.
Kinetics of Micellization
To measure the kinetics of
C3M formation, we monitored changes in FRET by measuring the fluorescence
intensities of mTurquoise2 and SYFP2 as a function of time. Figure shows the time dependency
of the ratio of SYFP2 to mTurquoise2 fluorescence intensities after
mixing a solution of proteins (at a FRET pair amount of 50%) with
a polymer solution. The concentrations after mixing were 0.25 μM
mTurquoise2, 0.25 μM SYFP2, 0.50 μM SBFP2, and 0.18 μM
P2MVP128-b-PEO477. After mixing,
the amount of FRET increases, indicating the formation of C3Ms. After
about 600 s, a plateau is reached with a similar ratio of the SYFP2
to mTurquoise2 fluorescence intensity as found for equilibrated C3Ms
(24 h) with the same FRET pair amount (RFRET,eq ≈ 2.5, Figure S1A). The time course
of the concentration of mTurquoise2
not involved in FRET during C3M formation was fitted for different
reaction order models (Supporting Information and Figure S2). Only the plot of the
natural logarithm of the concentration of mTurquoise2 molecules that
are not involved in FRET against time (ln[mTurquoise2] vs t) shows linear behavior (Figure S2B), indicating first-order kinetics. Consequently, the time-dependent
change of RFRET was fitted towhere RFRET,eq is the ratio of SYFP2 to mTurquoise2
fluorescence intensity at equilibrium
and k is the kinetic coefficient. The parameters
obtained from the fit are a kinetic coefficient (first-order rate
constant), k, of (9 × 10–3) ± (1 × 10–3) s–1 and
a final RFRET,eq of 2.47 ± 0.02 (number
of experiments (nexp) = 2). Thus, the
relaxation time of formation of C3Ms (τ = 1/k) is about 100 s.
Figure 4
Fluorescence emission ratio of SYFP2 to mTurquoise2 (527
nm/475
nm, RFRET) as a function of time following
the mixing of solutions of polymer and proteins (final concentrations:
0.25 μM mTurquoise2, 0.25 μM SYFP2, 0.50 μM SBFP2,
and 0.18 μM P2MVP128-b-PEO477). The solid line is the curve obtained using eq , with RFRET,eq = 2.47 and k = 9 × 10–3 s–1. Error bars represent the spread of the data (nexp = 2).
Fluorescence emission ratio of SYFP2 to mTurquoise2 (527
nm/475
nm, RFRET) as a function of time following
the mixing of solutions of polymer and proteins (final concentrations:
0.25 μM mTurquoise2, 0.25 μM SYFP2, 0.50 μM SBFP2,
and 0.18 μM P2MVP128-b-PEO477). The solid line is the curve obtained using eq , with RFRET,eq = 2.47 and k = 9 × 10–3 s–1. Error bars represent the spread of the data (nexp = 2).
Protein Exchange between Preformed C3Ms
To determine
the dynamics of protein exchange between C3Ms, we monitored changes
in FRET after mixing C3Ms containing SYFP2 with C3Ms containing mTurquoise2
at different final FRET pair amounts (between 50 and 20%, Figure ). For example, for
a final FRET pair amount of 20% the micelles initially contain 0.20
μM SYFP2, 0.80 μM SBFP2, and 0.18 μM P2MVP128-b-PEO477 (for C3Ms containing SYFP2)
and 0.20 μM mTurquoise2, 0.80 μM SBFP2, and 0.18 μM
P2MVP128-b-PEO477 (for C3Ms
containing mTurquoise2). Accordingly, the C3Ms with the other final
FRET pair amounts are mixed.
Figure 5
Fluorescence emission ratio of SYFP2 to mTurquoise2
(527 nm/475
nm) as a function of time following the exchange of proteins between
SYFP2-C3Ms and mTurquoise2-C3Ms at different final FRET pair amounts:
50% (yellow solid dots), 40% (green open squares), 30% (cyan open
triangles), and 20% (blue open diamonds). The total concentrations
of proteins and polymer are 1 and 0.18 μM, respectively. The
solid lines are the curves obtained using eq , with k = 1.0 × 10–2 s–1 and RFRET,eq = 2.39 for 50%, RFRET,eq = 1.86 for 40%, RFRET,eq = 1.24 for
30%, and RFRET,eq = 0.81 for 20%. Error
bars represent the standard deviation (nexp = 4).
Fluorescence emission ratio of SYFP2 to mTurquoise2
(527 nm/475
nm) as a function of time following the exchange of proteins between
SYFP2-C3Ms and mTurquoise2-C3Ms at different final FRET pair amounts:
50% (yellow solid dots), 40% (green open squares), 30% (cyan open
triangles), and 20% (blue open diamonds). The total concentrations
of proteins and polymer are 1 and 0.18 μM, respectively. The
solid lines are the curves obtained using eq , with k = 1.0 × 10–2 s–1 and RFRET,eq = 2.39 for 50%, RFRET,eq = 1.86 for 40%, RFRET,eq = 1.24 for
30%, and RFRET,eq = 0.81 for 20%. Error
bars represent the standard deviation (nexp = 4).Immediately upon mixing of the
micelle solutions, the FRET amount
increases, indicating the exchange of FPs between C3Ms. Within about
200 s, a plateau is reached with ratios similar to those of the corresponding
equilibrated C3Ms (0.8–2.3, Figure S1A). The change in RFRET with time was
globally fitted according to first-order reaction kinetics (eq , Figure
S3). The obtained kinetic coefficient, k,
is (1.0 × 10–2) ± (0.1 × 10–2) s–1 and the final ratios, RFRET,eq, are listed in Table . Apparently, the relaxation time for the exchange
of FPs between C3Ms to reach their equilibrium compositions is comparable
to the relaxation time of formation, i.e., about 100 s.
Table 1
Final Fluorescence Emission Ratios
of SYFP2 to mTurquoise2 (RFRET,eq) after
C3M Protein Exchange with a Kinetic Coefficient of (1.0 × 10–2) ± (0.1 × 10–2) s–1a
FRET pair
amount (%)
RFRET,eq
20
0.81 ± 0.01
30
1.24 ± 0.01
40
1.86 ± 0.02
50
2.39 ± 0.02
Standard deviations
are based
on multiple measurements (nexp = 4).
Standard deviations
are based
on multiple measurements (nexp = 4).
Salt Stability of C3Ms
It is well known that ionic
strength is a parameter that strongly affects the complexation of
oppositely charged polyelectrolytes. We therefore investigated the
influence of salt (NaCl) concentration on the stability of 50% FRET
pair C3Ms. Figure A shows the dependency of the normalized fluorescence spectra of
C3Ms on ionic strength (I), considering both buffer
and added salt. It can be seen that the donor fluorescence intensity
increases and the acceptor fluorescence intensity decreases with increasing
ionic strength (Figure S4). The salt ions
screen the electrostatic interaction between proteins and polymers,
and as a result, a 50% decrease in FRET was observed at an ionic strength
of 20 mM (Figure S4). DLS experiments showed
a decrease in scattering intensity above an ionic strength of 15 mM
(Figure C), confirming
a decline in the number of C3Ms.
Figure 6
Salt stability of 50% FRET pair C3Ms consisting
of 0.25 μM
mTurquoise2, 0.25 μM SYFP2, 0.50 μM SBFP2, and 0.18 μM
P2MVP128-b-PEO477. (A) Steady-state
fluorescence emission spectra (normalized to the intensity at 517
nm) at different ionic strengths (nexp = 3). (B) Gibbs energy of association of C3Ms as a function of ionic
strength calculated from the donor (squares) and acceptor (inverted
triangles) separately. (C and D) DLS results of the salt stability
of C3Ms: (C) the scattered light intensity and (D) the hydrodynamic
radius, both as a function of ionic strength shown on a log scale
(nexp = 1).
Salt stability of 50% FRET pair C3Ms consisting
of 0.25 μM
mTurquoise2, 0.25 μM SYFP2, 0.50 μM SBFP2, and 0.18 μM
P2MVP128-b-PEO477. (A) Steady-state
fluorescence emission spectra (normalized to the intensity at 517
nm) at different ionic strengths (nexp = 3). (B) Gibbs energy of association of C3Ms as a function of ionic
strength calculated from the donor (squares) and acceptor (inverted
triangles) separately. (C and D) DLS results of the salt stability
of C3Ms: (C) the scattered light intensity and (D) the hydrodynamic
radius, both as a function of ionic strength shown on a log scale
(nexp = 1).The stability, defined as the change in the Gibbs energy
of association
(ΔGassociation0) of C3Ms, was calculated over a range of ionic
strengths using eq ,
and the results are shown in Figure B. Extrapolation of these data to 2.5 mM ionic strength
(0 mM NaCl, 10 mM borate buffer, pH 9) leads to an apparent stability
of C3Ms of −10.0 kJ/mol or −4.1kBT (with kB being
the Boltzmann constant). We will come back to the meaning of this
change in Gibbs energy in the Discussion section.
Discussion
On the basis of our kinetic results, we propose
a model for the
formation and relaxation of FP-containing C3Ms, in line with commonly
accepted two-state models for the formation of simple surfactant micelles.[37−39] This model implies that immediately after the mixing of protein
and diblock copolymer solutions electrically neutral protein–polymer
complexes are formed. Such a process is comparable to the fast formation
of large intermediate aggregates as found for PAA-containing C3Ms.[7,9] Because for our systems we never observed a light-scattering intermediate,
we assume the initial formation of small soluble protein–polymer
complexes (SCs). Above a certain concentration, these SCs start to
aggregate, forming complex coacervate microphases that grow spontaneously.
While for simple, oppositely charged polyelectrolytes this growth
proceeds until two macroscopic phases are formed, here growth is limited
by the hydrophilic neutral chains of the diblock copolymer, which
remain in the polymer-poor phase. Because growth occurs in three dimensions,
the volume of the microphases increases more strongly than their surface
area, hence the available area per neutral chain decreases, driving
the chains together. Repulsion between these chains stops the growth
of the complex coacervate cores, yielding defined sizes of the micelles.[8,37]The formation of C3Ms should have two minima in the Gibbs
energy,
i.e., one at low aggregation number and one at the optimum aggregation
size (Figure ). These
minima correspond to the two states in the model: SCs and C3Ms. The
maximum between these two states is the nucleation barrier for the
aggregation of SCs (or the dissociation of C3Ms) and is caused by
two opposite contributions: the negative “volume” contribution
due to attraction between oppositely charged polyelectrolyte chains
and protein molecules and a positive “surface” contribution
due to the surface tension between the complex coacervate phase and
the solution. Because this surface tension is quite low,[40] the surface contribution is small compared to
the contribution due to the aggregation of SCs, leading to a relatively
low nucleation barrier.
Figure 7
Schematic representation of the Gibbs energy
of C3M formation as
a function of aggregation number n. The curve shows
two minima: one at low aggregation number corresponding to SCs and
one at the optimum aggregation size for C3Ms.
Schematic representation of the Gibbs energy
of C3M formation as
a function of aggregation number n. The curve shows
two minima: one at low aggregation number corresponding to SCs and
one at the optimum aggregation size for C3Ms.Linking this theory to our experimental results yields a
proposed
model for the formation of C3Ms, which is summarized in Figure . Upon mixing of protein and
diblock copolymer solutions, first a rapid formation of SCs occurs;
the second step is a slower process in which C3Ms relax to their final
equilibrium state due to the association and dissociation of SCs to
and from the micelles.
Figure 8
Schematic representation of C3M formation. Upon mixing
of protein
and diblock copolymer solutions, a rapid formation of SCs occurs.
These SCs are assumed to be near-neutral protein–polymer complexes.
Subsequently, the formation of C3Ms is a slower process in which SCs
continuously associate to and dissociate from C3Ms, with the corresponding
rate constants ka and kd, respectively.
Schematic representation of C3M formation. Upon mixing
of protein
and diblock copolymer solutions, a rapid formation of SCs occurs.
These SCs are assumed to be near-neutral protein–polymer complexes.
Subsequently, the formation of C3Ms is a slower process in which SCs
continuously associate to and dissociate from C3Ms, with the corresponding
rate constants ka and kd, respectively.It is reasonable to assume that the formation of SCs is diffusion-controlled.
This implies that this process would be on the micro- to millisecond
time scale,[16] which is much too fast to
be monitored by our FRET measurements. This would mean that not the
formation of SCs but the increase in the volume of core material (complex
coacervate microphases) is reflected by the fluorescence emission
ratio of SYFP2 to mTurquoise2 as a function of time after mixing protein
and polymer solutions.In the C3M mixing experiments, changes
in FRET reflect the gradual
exchange of core material. Actually, this process is not that different
from the relaxation process observed in the formation of C3Ms and
is depicted in Figure : after the mixing of the two types of equilibrated C3Ms, further
association and dissociation of SCs occur, allowing C3Ms to relax
to their final equilibrium composition. This explains why we observed
similar kinetic coefficients and relaxation times of about 100 s for
the formation of C3Ms and for the exchange of proteins between them.
An alternative mechanism for the exchange of proteins and the relaxation
of micelles by “fusion and fission” is less likely[14−16] because the neutral hydrophilic PEO units form a dense stabilizing
corona preventing the merging of C3Ms.
Figure 9
Schematic representation
of protein exchange between C3Ms. Upon
mixing of equilibrated C3Ms with their corresponding SCs, the SCs
become mixed. These mixed SCs associate and dissociate with the C3Ms
with rate constants of ka and kd, respectively, resulting in a population of
mixed C3Ms.
Schematic representation
of protein exchange between C3Ms. Upon
mixing of equilibrated C3Ms with their corresponding SCs, the SCs
become mixed. These mixed SCs associate and dissociate with the C3Ms
with rate constants of ka and kd, respectively, resulting in a population of
mixed C3Ms.The rate at which SCs
associate with (growing) C3Ms, ra, is
proportional to the concentrations of SCs and C3Msin which ka is
the association rate constant (Figures and 9) and [SC] and [C3M] denote
molar concentrations of SCs and C3Ms, respectively. Our FRET measurements
of C3M formation and the exchange between C3Ms convincingly revealed
first-order kinetics; therefore, either [SC] or [C3M] should be constant
on the time scale of the experiment. For that reason, eq would represent pseudo-first-order
kinetics. We can rule out that [SC] would be constant because the
increase in FRET is due to the conversion of SCs into complex coacervate
microphases (Figures and 9), resulting in a decrease in [SC] during
the measurements. Consequently, [C3M] should be constant to explain
the order of the reaction. This is possible only if during the FRET
measurements the nucleation of new micelles does not happen anymore
and only micelle growth takes place.The dissociation rate, rd, of SCs from
C3Ms is proportional to the concentration of C3Ms and the average
number of SCs, n, that the C3Ms containin which kd is
the dissociation rate constant (Figure ). Thus, the net change in the concentration of SCs
in time can be expressed asAt equilibrium, −d[SC]/dt is zero, n is constant, and eq reduces toThis implies that in the final state and provided
that the concentrations of protein and polymer are high enough to
form micelles, the concentration of SCs is independent of the total
concentration of protein and polymer. The concentration of SCs at
equilibrium approximately corresponds to the critical micelle concentration
(CMC), which we have expressed previously in terms of the free protein
concentration.[1] For large aggregation numbers, n, the CMC is related to the Gibbs energy of micellization:[41]For simplicity,
we assume that soluble complexes
correspond to one polymer chain (with the number of charged groups
being about +112) with on average 10 to 11 protein molecules (with
a net charge of about −10), resulting in more or less electrically
neutral moieties. Previously, the CMC for encapsulated EGFP was found
at 100 nM protein at a PMC of 0.65.[1] As
explained in the Introduction, the CMCs for
the FPs used in the present study are very similar. Expressing the
CMC via the diblock copolymer concentration, a value of 18 nM is found.
By substituting this value into eq , we estimate the Gibbs energy of micellization to
be −44 kJ/mol or −18kBT at an ionic strength of 2.5 mM. This is the free-energy
gain when an SC associates with a C3M.The decrease in FRET
during the salt titration reflects an increase
in the average distance between mTurquoise2 and SYFP2. This is probably
due to the disintegration of the micellar cores because salt ions
screen the attractive electrostatic interaction between the protein
molecules and the charged block of the polymer, thereby lowering the
entropic contribution of counterion release to the stability. We assume
that electrostatic interactions play a role, particularly in the formation
of SCs, because the formation of C3Ms results from the assembly of
these near-neutral entities. Therefore, the addition of salt would
especially affect the stability of SCs. The Gibbs energy of association
obtained from the salt titration reflects this stability. At an ionic
strength of 2.5 mM, ΔGassociation is −10.0 kJ/mol or −4.1kBT (Figure B). Together with the Gibbs energy of the insertion of an
SC into the micelle, ΔGmicellization (eq ), a rough estimate
of the overall Gibbs energy of formation of a C3M, iswith n being
the aggregation
number of SCs in a C3M. From the number of charges on the polymer
(112) and the protein (9 to 11), we assume that on average 10 to 11
protein molecules are associated with 1 polymer chain. About 450 proteins
are encapsulated in 1 C3M;[1] therefore,
on the basis of charge, about 40 diblock copolymers together with
the proteins make up 1 C3M. Taking the aggregation number equal to
the number of diblock copolymers per C3M, i.e., n ≈ 40, eq yields a value for ΔGC3M of about
−2160 kJ/mol or −880kT/micelle (at 2.5 mM ionic strength).Although the overall stability of C3Ms thus seems to be quite high,
their structure is highly dynamic and SCs with proteins are easily
dissociated from and reassociated with C3Ms, resulting in a rapid
exchange of proteins between the micelle core and bulk solution. This
has a huge impact on the practical applicability of C3Ms as protein
carriers: the protein molecules reside part of the time outside the
C3Ms and thus are unprotected. In addition, half of the micelles dissociate
at an ionic strength of 20 mM, which makes these systems inapplicable
under physiological conditions.To improve the stability and
reduce the dynamics of C3Ms, several
options exist. For example, one could choose to add an additional
homopolymer to obtain three-component C3Ms; as shown by Lindhoud et
al.,[4] such C3Ms can have very long relaxation
times. The cause of this phenomenon is not clear, however, and a disadvantage
is that much less protein molecules per micelle can be accommodated.
Alternatively, one could modify the protein, as has been done by Obermeyer
et al.,[42] who increased the net charge
of several proteins by converting positively charged lysine residues
to negatively charged residues. These negatively charged proteins
were encapsulated with strong polycations, resulting in the improved
stability of the micelles to increased ionic strength as the net charge
on the protein increased. In view of our findings, a very effective
option for trapping proteins would be to cross-link the charged blocks
of the diblock copolymers in the C3M cores by using amide bonds.[43,44] By doing so, it is not possible for proteins to leave micelles in
the form of almost neutral SCs, and the energy barrier to escape on
their own will be much higher. An additional advantage of this approach
is that the proteins do not need to be modified.
Conclusions
In
this article, the formation of protein-containing C3Ms, the
protein exchange between them, and their salt stability have been
studied using FRET. Energy transfer was followed between mTurquoise2
and SYFP2, which come in close proximity to each other in C3Ms upon
mixing with diblock copolymerP2MVP128-b-PEO477. At an ionic strength of about 20 mM, FRET in
such a micellar solution reduces to 50% of its initial value as a
result of the weakening of the electrostatic interactions between
polymers and proteins. Both the formation of C3Ms and the protein
exchange between C3Ms follow first-order kinetics with a relaxation
time of about 100 s, implying that the structures are dynamic. The
similarity between both processes can be explained by a two-state
model in which the equilibration of C3Ms to their final size and composition
involves the association and dissociation of small near-neutral protein–polymer
complexes (SCs). On the basis of the salt stability results, the proposed
model, and the assumption that an SC comprises 1 diblock copolymer
molecule and about 10 protein molecules, we estimate the overall Gibbs
energy of C3M formation to be −880kT/micelle.
Authors: S Chong; F B Mersha; D G Comb; M E Scott; D Landry; L M Vence; F B Perler; J Benner; R B Kucera; C A Hirvonen; J J Pelletier; H Paulus; M Q Xu Journal: Gene Date: 1997-06-19 Impact factor: 3.688
Authors: Joachim Goedhart; David von Stetten; Marjolaine Noirclerc-Savoye; Mickaël Lelimousin; Linda Joosen; Mark A Hink; Laura van Weeren; Theodorus W J Gadella; Antoine Royant Journal: Nat Commun Date: 2012-03-20 Impact factor: 14.919