Liposomes are well-established systems for drug delivery and biosensing applications. The design of a liposomal carrier requires careful choice of lipid composition and formulation method. These determine many vesicle properties including lamellarity, which can have a strong effect on both encapsulation efficiency and the efflux rate of encapsulated active compounds. Despite this, a comprehensive study on how the lipid composition and formulation method affect vesicle lamellarity is still lacking. Here, we combine small-angle neutron scattering and cryogenic transmission electron microscopy to study the effect of three different well-established formulation methods followed by extrusion through 100 nm polycarbonate membranes on the resulting vesicle membrane structure. Specifically, we examine vesicles formulated from the commonly used phospholipids 1-palmitoyl-2-oleoyl- sn-glycero-3-phosphocholine (POPC), 1,2-dipalmitoyl- sn-glycero-3-phosphocholine (DPPC) and 1,2-dioleoyl- sn-glycero-3-phosphocholine (DOPC) via film hydration followed by (i) agitation on a shaker or (ii) freeze-thawing, or (iii) the reverse-phase evaporation vesicle method. After extrusion, up to half of the total lipid content is still assembled into multilamellar structures. However, we achieved unilamellar vesicle populations when as little as 0.1 mol % PEG-modified lipid was included in the vesicle formulation. Interestingly, DPPC with 5 mol % PEGylated lipid produces a combination of cylindrical micelles and vesicles. In conclusion, our results provide important insights into the effect of the formulation method and lipid composition on producing liposomes with a defined membrane structure.
Liposomes are well-established systems for drug delivery and biosensing applications. The design of a liposomal carrier requires careful choice of lipid composition and formulation method. These determine many vesicle properties including lamellarity, which can have a strong effect on both encapsulation efficiency and the efflux rate of encapsulated active compounds. Despite this, a comprehensive study on how the lipid composition and formulation method affect vesicle lamellarity is still lacking. Here, we combine small-angle neutron scattering and cryogenic transmission electron microscopy to study the effect of three different well-established formulation methods followed by extrusion through 100 nm polycarbonate membranes on the resulting vesicle membrane structure. Specifically, we examine vesicles formulated from the commonly used phospholipids 1-palmitoyl-2-oleoyl- sn-glycero-3-phosphocholine (POPC), 1,2-dipalmitoyl- sn-glycero-3-phosphocholine (DPPC) and 1,2-dioleoyl- sn-glycero-3-phosphocholine (DOPC) via film hydration followed by (i) agitation on a shaker or (ii) freeze-thawing, or (iii) the reverse-phase evaporation vesicle method. After extrusion, up to half of the total lipid content is still assembled into multilamellar structures. However, we achieved unilamellar vesicle populations when as little as 0.1 mol % PEG-modified lipid was included in the vesicle formulation. Interestingly, DPPC with 5 mol % PEGylated lipid produces a combination of cylindrical micelles and vesicles. In conclusion, our results provide important insights into the effect of the formulation method and lipid composition on producing liposomes with a defined membrane structure.
Liposomes are soft
self-assembled structures that have been extensively
used for drug delivery and biosensing applications.[1−3] They are vesicles
comprising a phospholipid bilayer surrounding an inner aqueous cavity.
Their intrinsic biocompatibility, chemical versatility, and potential
for stimuli-responsive behavior make them ideal candidates for biological
applications.[4] Furthermore, they have the
ability to encapsulate both hydrophobic and hydrophilic compounds,
within the bilayer and the aqueous core, respectively.[5] Additionally, amphiphilic compounds can be encapsulated
in liposomes, partitioning between the lipid bilayer and the aqueous
compartment.[6] There are several parameters
to consider when designing liposome-based drug carriers. Among these,
vesicle lamellarity (number of consecutive lipid bilayers within one
vesicle) is particularly important: it is known to affect the encapsulation
efficiency, liposome internalization by cells, and efflux rate of
encapsulated therapeutic agents which have implications for drug delivery
and shelf life of formulations.[7,8] Therefore, for applications
which rely on release of encapsulated contents or sequestration of
an active molecule in the membrane bilayer, the lamellarity has a
profound effect on their efficacy.Despite this, vesicle lamellarity
has been largely overlooked in
the literature, with the current belief that by performing multiple
extrusions (on average 21 passages) through membranes with a pore
size smaller than 200 nm, almost exclusively unilamellar vesicle
populations can be produced, regardless of composition and formulation
method. Benchtop techniques cannot provide information about lamellarity
and more advanced techniques are therefore required to determine degrees
of multilamellarity. Among these, 31Phosphorus NMR (31P NMR) has been used to estimate vesicle lamellarity, but
it requires careful calibration because the concentration of the shift
reagent affects the calculated lamellarity.[9] Alternatively, experimentalists rely on cryogenic transmission electron
microscopy (cryo-TEM) or small-angle scattering. Cryo-TEM can
provide exact information about the morphology of individual vesicles,
but it is challenging to extract information about the overall properties
of the bulk sample. For bulk measurements, small-angle neutron scattering
(SANS) is a powerful and non-destructive technique that provides vesicle
structural information including membrane bilayer thickness, vesicle
diameter, lamellarity, and overall morphology based on their interaction
with neutrons.[10] Compared with small-angle
X-ray scattering (SAXS), SANS does not risk radiation damage to the
sample and offers improved contrast, and it is suited for contrast
matching measurements. On the other hand, X-ray scattering provides
excellent resolution of the Bragg peaks and allows fast kinetics measurements.
Furthermore, while SAXS is also accessible in a laboratory setting,
neutron scattering requires access to large-scale facilities, such
as accelerator driven or reactor based sources, deuterated solvents
and involved analysis procedures. These challenges in collecting data
on lamellarity may explain in part the difficulty in quantifying its
significance.Over the years, many different liposome formulation
methods have
been introduced, each of which produces a different system in terms
of vesicle lamellarity and size distribution. The most common liposome
formulation methods are depicted in Figure . The thin film hydration method was the
first method described for liposome preparation and involves the creation
of a dried lipid film in a round-bottom flask, followed by hydration
with an aqueous buffer and agitation, for example on a shaker.[11] Alternatively, it is possible to introduce freeze–thawing
cycles after the hydration or the agitation step, which have been
reported to improve encapsulation efficiencies.[12] Both methods yield multilamellar vesicles in the micron-size
range with a heterogeneous size distribution. Size reduction techniques
are therefore needed for most applications. The preferred strategies
to obtain homogeneous small unilamellar vesicle populations are extrusion
through a membrane with a pore size below 200 nm or sonication. The
extrusion technique offers advantages over sonication in terms of
vesicle size distribution and reproducibility.[13] Furthermore, it has been shown that increasing the number
of extrusion passages has a beneficial effect on the unilamellarity
of the system.[14] Alternatively, some methods
are designed to yield unilamellar vesicles from the beginning, thus
avoiding vesicle post-processing. One of these is the reverse-phase
evaporation vesicle (REV) method (Figure , route B), which is based on the creation
of a water-in-oil emulsion system where the phospholipid acts as a
surfactant, forming micelles with an inner aqueous core. Progressive
removal of the organic phase (usually by evaporation under reduced
pressure) leads to the collapse of some of the lipid micelles and
the formation of unilamellar vesicles.[15] This approach does however result in residual organic solvent in
the vesicle membrane which can limit their use.
Figure 1
Schematic of common liposome
formulation methods. Dried lipid films
can be resuspended in aqueous buffer (path A), followed by agitation
on a shaker (A1) or freeze–thaw cycles (A2). Both methods lead
to the formation of multilamellar vesicles, although for the FT method
the degree of lamellarity is lower. Resuspension of the lipid film
in an organic solvent mixture and subsequent addition of water (path
B) forms a water-in-oil emulsion where the lipids act as surfactants.
Progressive removal of the organic solvents leads to the formation
of a unilamellar vesicle suspension. This is called the reverse-phase
evaporation vesicle method.
Schematic of common liposome
formulation methods. Dried lipid films
can be resuspended in aqueous buffer (path A), followed by agitation
on a shaker (A1) or freeze–thaw cycles (A2). Both methods lead
to the formation of multilamellar vesicles, although for the FT method
the degree of lamellarity is lower. Resuspension of the lipid film
in an organic solvent mixture and subsequent addition of water (path
B) forms a water-in-oil emulsion where the lipids act as surfactants.
Progressive removal of the organic solvents leads to the formation
of a unilamellar vesicle suspension. This is called the reverse-phase
evaporation vesicle method.Although liposome formulations have already proved their
importance
as a tractable approach toward developing drug carriers, little attention
has been paid to how lipid composition and formulation methods affect
vesicle lamellarity. In this work, we used a combination of SANS and
cryo-TEM to elucidate the membrane structure of vesicles prepared
using three different formulation methods and extruded through a 100
nm pore-sized membrane. We examined two phospholipids that differ
slightly in the structure of their hydrocarbon tails only and are
widely used in the liposome field: 1-palmitoyl-2-oleoyl-sn-glycero-3-phosphocholine (POPC) and 1,2-dipalmitoyl-sn-glycero-3-phosphocholine (DPPC). We also evaluated the effect of
the introduction of varying amounts of a poly(ethylene)glycol
(PEG)-modified lipid in POPC, DPPC, or 1,2-dioleoyl-sn-glycero-3-phosphocholine (DOPC) vesicles. The results obtained from
the SANS experiments, corroborated by cryo-TEM, provide important
insights toward the characterization of lamellarity from individual
vesicles to bulk population distributions and highlight the importance
of lipid composition and formulation method for the vesicle design.
Results
and Discussion
Effect of the Formulation Method
To evaluate the effect
of the formulation method on vesicle lamellarity, we studied three
common liposome formulation methods, namely: (a) film hydration followed
by agitation on a shaker (AS), (b) film hydration followed by 5 freeze-thaw
cycles (FT), and (c) reverse-phase evaporation (REV). Post-formulation,
all vesicles were extruded 35 times through a polycarbonate membrane
with 100 nm pore size. Vesicles were composed of either POPC or DPPC,
which both belong to the phosphatidylcholine family, the major component
of animal cell membranes.[16] While DPPC
has two saturated alkyl chains, POPC has one saturated and one unsaturated
alkyl chain. As a result, they have different phase behaviors at 25
°C: POPC has a phase transition melting temperature (Tm) of −2 °C; thus, it is in the
liquid crystalline phase, whereas DPPC (Tm = 41 °C) is in the gel phase. The measured SANS data and the
fitting curves for the DPPC liposomes are shown in Figure . Unextruded vesicles prepared
via the AS or FT method exhibit a sharp Bragg peak at Q = 0.096 Å–1 (AS) and 0.095 Å–1 (FT) (Figure A,B),
which is representative of multilamellar vesicles and is due to scattering
from stacks of lipid lamellae with a d-spacing (d = 2π/Q) of 65.45 and 66.14 Å,
respectively, which includes the coordinated water layer.[17,18] This value is in good agreement with previously reported SAXS data
for DPPC bulk samples.[19] The multilamellar
structures are a result of phospholipid self-assembly upon hydration
with an aqueous buffer, and it is well established that extruding
such large multilamellar vesicles through a membrane with a pore size
≤ 200 nm disrupts the multilamellar organization.[20,21] In extruded DPPC vesicle formulations prepared by AS or FT, the
neutron scattering data no longer show a Bragg peak (Figure D,E). However, the fittings
of these measurements show that bilamellar vesicles still account
for 9 vol % of the total vesicle population after extrusion (see Table ). The dip in the
scattering curves of the extruded samples around Q = 10–2 Å–1 is largely due
to the core radius. No peak due to core radius is visible in the unextruded
samples because the mixture is comprised of vesicles with radii of
100–1000 s of nm. These length scales are too large to be accessible
in the measured Q range. High polydispersity, as
observed in the unextruded vesicle samples, can also lead to ill-defined
vesicle radii.
Figure 2
SANS data for unextruded DPPC vesicles prepared via the
(A) AS
method, (B) FT method, and (C) REV method, and DPPC vesicles prepared
via the (D) AS method, (E) FT method, and (F) REV method then extruded
through a 100 nm membrane. Points with errors represent measured data
and lines are fits of functions generated using a Broad Peak model
(A,B) and models with uni- and bilamellar vesicle components (C–F).
Data are plotted on a log–log scale.
Table 1
Fitting Parameters of SANS Data of
Extruded DPPC and POPC Vesicles Prepared via the AS, FT, and REV Methodsa
proportion
of total %
lipid
form. method
model
component
rc
ts
tw
Rtotal
vol
num
lipid
DPPC
AS
bilamellar
unilamellar
661
45
706
91
91
85
bilamellar
586
45
29
705
9
9
15
FT
bilamellar
unilamellar
614
45
659
91
93
86
bilamellar
610
45
31
731
9
7
14
REV
unilamellar
unilamellar
526
48
574
100
100
100
POPC
AS
quadrilamellar
unilamellar
909
37
946
71
71
51
bilamellar
848
37
27
949
17
17
23
trilamellar
712
37
23
869
4
5
8
quadrilamellar
758
37
26
984
8
7
17
FT
trilamellar
unilamellar
598
37
635
75
86
64
bilamellar
666
37
26
766
16
10
21
trilamellar
683
37
26
846
9
4
15
REV
bilamellar
unilamellar
761
38
799
89
88
81
bilamellar
662
39
28
768
11
12
19
The fitted core
radius rc, ts, tw and the total radius Rtotal are
reported in Å.
SANS data for unextruded DPPC vesicles prepared via the
(A) AS
method, (B) FT method, and (C) REV method, and DPPC vesicles prepared
via the (D) AS method, (E) FT method, and (F) REV method then extruded
through a 100 nm membrane. Points with errors represent measured data
and lines are fits of functions generated using a Broad Peak model
(A,B) and models with uni- and bilamellar vesicle components (C–F).
Data are plotted on a log–log scale.The fitted core
radius rc, ts, tw and the total radius Rtotal are
reported in Å.In the
case of the unextruded vesicles, the scattered intensity
is dominated by the contributions of the bilayers/multilayers of the
vesicles rather than the overall dimensions of the micron-scale vesicles.
Scattering data from these unextruded vesicles prepared via AS or
FT methods could therefore be fitted with a Broad Peak model (see
the Supporting Information and Table S1).
This model is a combination of a Lorentzian-peak and a power law decay
and allows the determination of the Porod exponent. The Porod exponents
obtained gave comparable values for unextruded vesicles prepared with
the AS method and FT method (3.63 ± 0.014 and 3.51 ± 0.007,
respectively). The vesicle sizes are too large to capture their overall
dimensions in our measured Q range so it was not possible to determine
their radii. The neutron scattering data for the extruded vesicles
prepared via the AS method and the FT cycles were fitted
using a custom-built model to account for the presence of bilamellar
vesicles. In contrast to unextruded AS- and FT-prepared vesicles,
we observed no Bragg peak in samples of unextruded DPPC vesicles prepared
via the REV method (Figure C) and exclusively unilamellar vesicles by cryo-TEM (Figure S1). A unilamellar vesicle model was used
to fit the measured neutron scattering curves, and a bilayer thickness
of 48 Å was obtained. In this case, extrusion through a 100 nm
membrane has the sole effect of reducing vesicle size, and the scattering
data for vesicles prepared via the REV method followed by extrusion
could be fitted using the same model (see the Supporting Information). The fitting parameters are reported
in Table . Here, rc indicates the core radius, and ts and tw indicate the bilayer
and the water layer thickness, respectively.The best-fit bilayer
thickness is in good agreement with the values
reported in the literature for extruded DPPC vesicles.[19] In all of the cases, the particle size is slightly
bigger than the membrane pore size used for the extrusion, as reported
previously.[21] The best-fit Rtotal is in good agreement with dynamic light scattering
(DLS) measurements of extruded DPPC vesicles, which gave hydrodynamic
diameters of 126 ± 59 nm (AS method) and 112 ± 39 nm (FT
method) (cf. Figure S3A). From the obtained
fitting parameters, it is possible to calculate the proportion of
bilamellar vesicles as a function of the total particle volume, particle
number, or lipid volume. Calculations for DPPC vesicles are reported
in Table S2. For both the AS and FT methods,
bilamellar vesicles represent 9% of the total particle volume or around
15% of the total lipid content. This is an important parameter to
consider: it indicates that part of the total lipid used is forming
bilamellar structures, thereby invalidating estimates of vesicle number
concentration based on the total lipid concentration used in the vesicle
formulation. Furthermore, decreases in the observed particle concentration
(measured, e.g., using nanoparticle tracking-based techniques) with
respect to estimated values from initial lipid concentrations are
often attributed to lipid loss during the formulation or the extrusion
step. However, our results suggest that this may also be due to the
presence of residual multilamellar structures. In conclusion, DPPC
vesicles extruded through a 100 nm pore-sized membrane give a predominantly
unilamellar vesicle population with residual bilamellar vesicles (91
and 9% of the total particle volume, respectively) when the AS or
the FT methods are used and a unilamellar vesicle population when
the REV method is used. Vesicle sizes are comparable for AS and FT
and slightly smaller for the REV method.
Effect of the Phase Behavior
To probe whether our observations
in the section above with DPPC vesicles were limited to lipids in
the gel phase, we conducted the same experiments with liquid-crystalline-phase
POPC vesicles to evaluate the effect of the formulation method on
their lamellarity. SANS data and fitting curves for POPC vesicles
are shown in Figure . Unextruded POPC vesicles prepared via the AS or the FT cycle methods
present the characteristic Bragg peak at Q = 0.098
and 0.096 Å–1, respectively (Figure A,B), typical of multilamellar
systems. Scattering data for the unextruded POPC vesicles prepared
via the AS and FT methods were fitted using a Broad Peak model (Table S3). Also in this case, the vesicle radii
are too large to capture their overall dimensions in our measured
Q range. The extruded POPC vesicles (Figure D,E) also exhibit an apparent residual multilamellarity
after extrusion, as evidenced by the small Bragg peak at Q = 0.095 Å–1.
Figure 3
SANS data of unextruded POPC vesicles
prepared via the (A) AS method,
(B) FT method, and (C) REV method, and POPC vesicles prepared via
the (D) AS method, (E) FT method, and (F) REV method then extruded
through a 100 nm membrane. Points with errors represent measured data
and lines are fittings curves by a Broad Peak model (A,B) and models
with uni-, bi-, tri- and quadrilamellar vesicle components (D–F).
Data are plotted on a log–log scale.
SANS data of unextruded POPC vesicles
prepared via the (A) AS method,
(B) FT method, and (C) REV method, and POPC vesicles prepared via
the (D) AS method, (E) FT method, and (F) REV method then extruded
through a 100 nm membrane. Points with errors represent measured data
and lines are fittings curves by a Broad Peak model (A,B) and models
with uni-, bi-, tri- and quadrilamellar vesicle components (D–F).
Data are plotted on a log–log scale.A custom-built model was used to fit the extruded POPC vesicles
produced via AS and FT methods. While the bilamellar model was sufficient
for good fits of gel-phase DPPC, for the POPC vesicles, we required
a model that is a combination of standard multishell vesicle models
to take into account the presence of bi-, tri- and quadrilamellar
vesicles (see Supporting Information).
Fitting parameters are reported in Table . The values of the best-fit bilayer thickness
are in good agreement with previously reported data for extruded POPC
vesicles.[22] We have previously observed
a bilamellar subpopulation comprising 7 vol % in POPC vesicles extruded
to 50 nm.[23] It has also been previously
reported that extrusion of POPC vesicles 29 times through a 100 nm
membrane yields a predominantly unilamellar distribution with a subpopulation
of multilamellar vesicles comprising 16% of the total vesicle number.[24] We found a significantly higher proportion of
multilamellarity in both AS and FT formulations extruded to 100 nm,
with only 71–75 vol % of vesicles being unilamellar. The majority
of the multilamellar population was bilamellar vesicles (for exact
figures, see Table ). In cryo-TEM of AS-prepared vesicles (Figure S2), we also observed onion-like, trilamellar and bilamellar
vesicles. Such a percentage of multilamellar structures could have
a significant effect on the efficacy of vesicle-based drug encapsulation
and release systems. Interestingly, while we required a quadrilamellar
population for a good fit in the AS-prepared vesicles, the FT-prepared
vesicles were adequately fitted with only uni-, bi-, and trilamellar
subpopulations. This suggests a potential beneficial effect of the
FT cycles and is in agreement with a previous study that has shown
that repeated FT cycles reduce vesicle multilamellarity.[25] POPC vesicle populations prepared via the FT
formulation method were also slightly smaller than those prepared
by the AS and REV methods. In the case of REV-formulations from POPC,
unlike in DPPC vesicle formulations, unextruded vesicles did exhibit
some degree of multilamellarity (Figure C). Unextruded POPC vesicles were fitted
in this case with a Broad Peak model (Table S3). A model adjusted to account for bilamellar vesicles was used to
fit the extruded REV vesicles scattering curve (Figure F). It appears in this case that after extrusion
11% of the total vesicle population by particle volume is bilamellar.
Calculations for the fractions of multilamellar vesicles as a function
of total particle volume, number, and lipid are reported in Table S4. It is worth mentioning that for both
the AS and the FT methods, roughly 50% of the total lipid ends up
in multilamellar structures, whereas for the REV method approximately
20% ends up in bilamellar vesicles. Additionally, the best-fit bilayer
thickness for vesicles prepared via the REV method is slightly larger
than for those prepared via AS or FT methods, possibly because of
the presence of residual organic solvent in the vesicle membrane.
A possible explanation for increased multilamellarity of POPC versus
DPPC vesicle formulations is that, upon lipid film hydration, some
of the multilamellar vesicles formed from POPC lipid films are already
similar in size to the pore sizes of the membrane used
for extrusion. This results in the persistence of multilamellar structures
after the extrusion. Although the mechanism of multilamellar vesicles
formation from dry phospholipid films is yet to be fully understood,
some parameters are known to play an important role in the whole process.
Among these, the membrane bending rigidity κc (defined
as the energy required to bend a surfactant film) can affect the formation
of vesicles.[26,27] Compared with DPPC bilayers,
POPC bilayers have a lower membrane bending rigidity (κc = 1.5 × 10–19 and κc = 0.332 × 10–19 J for DPPC and POPC bilayers,
respectively[28,29]), which may favor the phospholipid
self-assembly in small multilamellar vesicles upon lipid film hydration.
Nevertheless, DLS measurements of POPC vesicles that were prepared
via the AS or FT methods and extruded through a 100 nm pore-sized
membrane showed monodisperse vesicle populations with hydrodynamic
diameters of 118 ± 37 and 109 ± 32 nm, respectively (Figure S3B).
Effect of a PEGylated Phospholipid
Because of the potential
tendency of POPC to form small multilamellar structures, we hypothesized
that the introduction of a bulky hydrophilic component in the vesicle
composition could sterically hinder the formation of such small multilamellar
structures by inhibiting lamellar stacking. Surface-active compounds
such as short-chain lecithin or mono dodecyl ether can favor the formation
of unilamellar structures when introduced in the vesicle composition,
although the mechanism behind this behavior is not clear.[30,31] For our purposes, we used a PEG-containing phospholipid. PEG has
been extensively used in liposomal formulations for drug delivery
as a stabilizing agent against aggregation and protein adsorption.[32] Depending on the molar fraction of the PEGylated
lipid in the liposome formulation, the PEG chains assume a “mushroom”
or a “brush-like” configuration on the liposome surface.[33] For our purposes, we investigated whether a
PEG-containing phospholipid could prevent the formation of multilamellar
structures in extruded vesicles. We prepared vesicles including a
small mol % of DOPE-PEG2000 of DPPC, POPC, or DOPC via
the FT method and extruded 35 times through a membrane with 100 nm
pore size. These three phospholipids present three different degrees
of alkyl chain saturation: DPPC has two saturated alkyl chains, POPC
has one saturated and one unsaturated alkyl chain, and DOPC has two
unsaturated alkyl chains. DOPC also belongs to the phosphatidylcholine
family and has a transition temperature of −17 °C and
is therefore in the liquid phase at 25 °C.
PEGylated POPC
Vesicles
SANS data of POPC-PEGylated
vesicles are shown in Figure . Compared with the pure POPC vesicles, the unextruded POPC
vesicles containing PEGylated phospholipids show the presence of a
second peak at Q ≈ 0.037 Å–1 (Figure S4). This second peak is representative
of the multilamellarity of PEG regions and is more evident with increasing
PEGylated phospholipid percentage in the liposomes composition. Extruded
POPC vesicles with 0.1 mol % DOPE-PEG2000 still exhibit
a small Bragg peak, whereas extruded vesicles with higher DOPE-PEG2000 mol % do not, indicating a substantial reduction of multilamellar
structures.
Figure 4
SANS data of POPC vesicles prepared via the FT method and DOPE-PEG2000 at (A) 0, (B) 0.1, (C) 0.5, (D) 1, and (E) 5 mol %, respectively.
Vesicles were extruded through 100 nm membrane 35 times. Points with
errors represent measured data and lines are fittings curves by models
with uni-, bi- and trilamellar vesicle components. Scattering
data are plotted on a log–log scale. (F) Cryo-TEM of unextruded
POPC vesicles containing 5 mol % DOPE-PEG2000. (G) Cryo-TEM
of POPC vesicles containing 5 mol % DOPE-PEG2000 and extruded
through a 100 nm membrane 35 times. In both cases, vesicles were prepared
via the FT method. Scale bar: 100 nm.
SANS data of POPC vesicles prepared via the FT method and DOPE-PEG2000 at (A) 0, (B) 0.1, (C) 0.5, (D) 1, and (E) 5 mol %, respectively.
Vesicles were extruded through 100 nm membrane 35 times. Points with
errors represent measured data and lines are fittings curves by models
with uni-, bi- and trilamellar vesicle components. Scattering
data are plotted on a log–log scale. (F) Cryo-TEM of unextruded
POPC vesicles containing 5 mol % DOPE-PEG2000. (G) Cryo-TEM
of POPC vesicles containing 5 mol % DOPE-PEG2000 and extruded
through a 100 nm membrane 35 times. In both cases, vesicles were prepared
via the FT method. Scale bar: 100 nm.A custom-built model that accounted for bilamellar vesicles
was
used to fit the extruded POPC vesicles with 0.1 mol % DOPE-PEG2000 lipid, whereas a unilamellar vesicle model was sufficient
for the higher PEGylated lipid content. Fitting parameters are reported
in Table .
Table 2
Fitting Parameters of SANS Data of
Extruded DOPC, POPC, and DPPC Ensembles Containing Varying mol % of
DOPE-PEG2000 and Prepared via the FT Methoda
proportion
of total %
lipid
PEG mol %
model
component
rc
ts
tw
Rtotal
vol
num
lipid
POPC
0
trilamellar
unilamellar
566
37
603
70
81
57
bilamellar
578
37
25
677
17
14
23
trilamellar
671
37
26
834
13
5
20
0.1
bilamellar
unilamellar
626
37
663
94
95
91
bilamellar
610
37
30
714
6
5
9
0.5
unilamellar
unilamellar
576
37
613
100
100
100
1
unilamellar
unilamellar
579
37
616
100
100
100
5
unilamellar
unilamellar
551
38
589
100
100
100
DOPC
0
trilamellar
unilamellar
574
37
611
74
79
61
bilamellar
552
37
26
652
16
14
23
trilamellar
550
37
27
715
9
6
16
0.1
unilamellar
unilamellar
652
37
689
100
100
100
0.5
unilamellar
unilamellar
899
37
936
100
100
100
1
unilamellar
unilamellar
898
37
935
100
100
100
5
unilamellar
unilamellar
612
37
649
100
100
100
DPPC
0
bilamellar
unilamellar
662
45
707
87
86
79
bilamellar
566
45
32
688
13
14
21
0.1
unilamellar
unilamellar
563
44
607
100
100
100
0.5
unilamellar
unilamellar
566
43
609
100
100
100
1
unilamellar
unilamellar
544
44
588
100
100
100
5
cylindervesicleb
The fitted
core radius rc, ts, tw, and the total radius Rtotal are
reported in Å.
See Table S8.
The fitted
core radius rc, ts, tw, and the total radius Rtotal are
reported in Å.See Table S8.The best-fit bilayer thickness remains almost constant at 37 Å
with increasing PEGylated lipid content up to 1 mol %. For PEG lipids
with polymer molecular weight of 2000 g/mol, the transition from mushroom
to the brush regime of the polymer chains is expected to happen at
1.4 mol % PEGylated lipid for liquid-phase systems.[34] Therefore, up to 1 mol % DOPE-PEG2000, the PEG
chains should be in the mushroom configuration, while for 5 mol %
DOPE-PEG2000, they should be in the brush-like configuration.
This may explain the increase in best-fit bilayer thickness to 38
Å for the vesicles containing 5 mol % DOPE-PEG2000, where the PEG fully covers the vesicle surface and the PEG moieties
are extended in the “brush” configuration. The water
layer thickness between the bilayers slightly increases with increasing
DOPE-PEG2000 content, possibly because of the presence
of the PEG. The percentage of multilamellar vesicles is greatly reduced
with 0.1 mol % DOPE-PEG2000 and disappears with as little
as 0.5 mol % DOPE-PEG2000, as shown from the fittings of
the scattering curves. A further increase of the PEGylated lipid content
leads to a complete removal of this residual multilamellarity. In
particular, cryo-TEM showed that unextruded POPC vesicles containing
5 mol % DOPE-PEG2000 are unilamellar (Figure F) and extrusion therefore
only reduces their size (Figure G). Calculations for the bi- and trilamellar vesicle
component for extruded POPC vesicles with varying amounts of DOPE-PEG2000 are reported in Table S5. For
extruded POPC vesicles containing 0.1 mol % DOPE-PEG2000 the bilamellar vesicles represent around 6% of the total particle
volume and number. The fraction of lipid that ends up in bilamellar
structures is in this case 9%.
PEGylated DOPC Vesicles
DOPC vesicles exhibited a similar
behavior to POPC-based vesicles. Neutron scattering profiles for the
DOPC vesicles and fitting curves are shown in Figure . Unextruded DOPC vesicles (Figure S5A) present a Bragg peak at Q ≈
0. 1 Å–1; this multilamellarity is partially
retained after extrusion, and the data were fitted with a custom-built
model to take into account of the presence of bi- and trilamellar
vesicles. The introduction of as little as 0.1 mol % of the DOPE-PEG2000 lipid has a beneficial effect on reducing vesicle multilamellarity
(cf. reduction of the Bragg peak for the unextruded sample (Figure S5B)) and unextruded vesicles containing
0.5, 1, and 5 mol % DOPE-PEG2000 lipid (Figure S5C–E). A lower mol % of DOPE-PEG2000 is needed to remove multilamellarity for DOPC vesicles compared
with POPC.
Figure 5
SANS data of DOPC vesicles prepared via the FT method and containing
DOPE-PEG2000 at (A) 0, (B) 0.1, (C) 0.5, (D) 1, and (E)
5 mol %, respectively. Vesicles were extruded through 100 nm membrane
35 times. Points with errors represent measured data, and lines are
fitting curves by models with uni-, bi- and trilamellar vesicle components.
Data are plotted on a log–log scale.
SANS data of DOPC vesicles prepared via the FT method and containing
DOPE-PEG2000 at (A) 0, (B) 0.1, (C) 0.5, (D) 1, and (E)
5 mol %, respectively. Vesicles were extruded through 100 nm membrane
35 times. Points with errors represent measured data, and lines are
fitting curves by models with uni-, bi- and trilamellar vesicle components.
Data are plotted on a log–log scale.The fitting parameters are reported in Table . The best-fit bilayer thickness is consistent
with the values reported in the literature for extruded DOPC vesicles,[22] and vesicle diameters are in the region of 120–170
nm. For extruded DOPC vesicles, the fraction of bilamellar vesicles
represents around 16% of the total particle volume while the trilamellar
vesicles represent less than 10% and roughly 40% of the total lipid
ends up in multilamellar vesicles. However, with the addition of just
0.1 mol % of DOPE-PEG2000, all of the lipids are formulated
into unilamellar vesicles and the theoretical vesicle yield is therefore
significantly increased. Detailed calculations are found in Table S6.
PEGylated DPPC Vesicles
The measured SANS data and
the fitting curves for the DPPC DOPE-PEG2000 ensembles
are shown in Figure . Unextruded DPPC vesicles containing 0.1 mol % DOPE-PEG2000 data still present the Bragg peak at Q ≈
0. 1 Å–1, although it is less pronounced if
compared with pure DPPC vesicles prepared via the same method (Figure S6A,B). For DOPE-PEG2000 content
of 0.5 mol % and above, the Bragg peak disappears (Figure S6C–E). Scattering profiles of extruded
DPPC vesicles with 0.1, 0.5, and 1 mol % DOPE-PEG2000 do
not show any residual contribution of the Bragg peak and can be fitted
by a unilamellar vesicle model. The fitting parameters are reported
in Table while detailed calculations for the lamellarity are reported
in Table S7. The best-fit bilayer
thickness is consistent with the values reported in the literature
for extruded DPPC vesicles. Extruded vesicles containing 0.1, 0.5,
and 1 mol % DOPE-PEG2000 present a vesicle diameter
of around 120 nm (for exact values of radii in Å see Table ). Interestingly,
the SANS data for the 5 mol % DOPE-PEG2000 reveal
a coexistence of cylindrical micelles and vesicles. It has been previously
reported that DPPC is able to form micellar structures when a PEGylated
phospholipid with saturated alkyl chains
is introduced. With the increasing PEGylated lipid content, there
is a transition from liposome to discoidal and then spherical micelles.[35,36] To our knowledge, this is the first evidence of the formation
of cylindrical micelles of DPPC and a PEGylated phospholipid with unsaturated alkyl chains. Cryo-TEM (Figure G) also confirmed the
coexistence of micelles and vesicular structures. The 5 mol % DOPE-PEG2000 DPPC scattering data were consistent with an elliptical
cylinder model combined with a unilamellar vesicle model (Supporting Information). Fitting parameters are
reported in Table S8. Fitting of the
5 mol % DOPE-PEG2000 extruded DPPC ensembles allowed
the estimation of some characteristic parameters. Micellar structures
account for 47 vol % and can be fitted as 378 Å long elliptical
cylindrical structures, with a cross-sectional minor radius of 35
Å and major radius of 175 Å. Vesicular ensembles are unilamellar,
accounting for 53 vol % of the total population and have a diameter
of around 150 nm. As opposed to the formulation of DPPC with 5 mol
% DOPE-PEG2000, characterized by a substantial amount of
cylindrical micelles, formulations of DOPC or POPC with 5 mol % DOPE-PEG2000 gave unilamellar vesicle populations. This interesting
behavior may be due to the differences in lipid natural curvature
and bilayer phase for DPPC compared to POPC and DOPC. Phosphatidylcholine
lipids have on average a cylindrical shape, although the presence
of chain unsaturation alters the natural curvature of the lipids.
In this sense, DPPC has a “pure” cylindrical shape,
while POPC and DOPC present a more open configuration because of chain
unsaturation.[37,38] Therefore, it is likely
that DPPC, because of its cylindrical shape, is more able to adopt
a geometry with flatter lipid sheets. This may also be favored by
the fact that DPPC is in the gel phase, which imparts a more rigid
configuration to the bilayer. POPC and DOPC are instead in the liquid-crystalline
phase, normally associated with a very fluid membrane. Taken together,
these factors may explain the tendency of DPPC to form cylindrical
structures when mixed with 5 mol % DOPE-PEG2000.
Figure 6
SANS data of DPPC vesicles prepared via the FT method
and containing
DOPE-PEG2000 at (A) 0, (B) 0.1, (C) 0.5, (D) 1, and (E)
5 mol %, respectively. Vesicles were extruded through 100 nm membrane
35 times. Points with errors represent measured data and lines are
fittings curves by models with uni-, bi- and trilamellar vesicle components
(A–D) and with a cylindrical and unilamellar vesicle component
(E). Scattering data are plotted on a log–log scale. (F,G)
Cryo-TEM of DPPC vesicles containing 5 mol % DOPE-PEG2000, showing coexistence of cylindrical micelles and highly faceted
vesicular structures. Scale bar: 100 nm.
SANS data of DPPC vesicles prepared via the FT method
and containing
DOPE-PEG2000 at (A) 0, (B) 0.1, (C) 0.5, (D) 1, and (E)
5 mol %, respectively. Vesicles were extruded through 100 nm membrane
35 times. Points with errors represent measured data and lines are
fittings curves by models with uni-, bi- and trilamellar vesicle components
(A–D) and with a cylindrical and unilamellar vesicle component
(E). Scattering data are plotted on a log–log scale. (F,G)
Cryo-TEM of DPPC vesicles containing 5 mol % DOPE-PEG2000, showing coexistence of cylindrical micelles and highly faceted
vesicular structures. Scale bar: 100 nm.Through systematic SANS analysis, we have shown that formulation
method has a pronounced effect on lamellarity of DPPC and POPC vesicle
populations. In particular, for DPPC vesicles, AS and FT both gave
multilamellar, unextruded, and mixed unilamellar/bilamellar extruded
populations. For POPC vesicles, AS and FT both gave multilamellar
unextruded populations that became predominantly unilamellar with
residual presence of bi-, tri- and quadrilamellar populations upon
extrusion. The reverse-phase evaporation vesicle method however yielded
a unilamellar extruded population in the case of DPPC and a mixed
unilamellar/bilamellar extruded population in the case of POPC. Table shows a summary of
the effect of the different methods on the vesicle lamellarity for
DPPC and POPC liposomes. These findings are very important for vesicle
design and development. Estimates of the vesicle number and proportion
of lipids assembled into unilamellar structures show that the formulation
method needs to be carefully tailored to the specific application.
For example, 10% of POPC vesicles are bilamellar when prepared via
the REV method, while around 30% are multilamellar when the FT or
AS methods are used.
Table 3
Summary Table for
Extruded DPPC and
POPC Vesicles Prepared via the AS, FT, and REV Methods
The introduction of a PEGylated phospholipid
in the vesicle composition
helped in reducing or completely removing any residual multilamellarity
for POPC, DOPC, and DPPC. Additionally, it was found that introduction
of 5 mol % of the DOPE-PEG2000 lipid led to the formation
of a mixed population of cylindrical micelles and unilamellar vesicles
in the case of DPPC and unilamellar vesicles in the case of POPC and
DOPC. A summary of the structures obtained with different molar fraction
of the PEGylated lipid is shown in Table .
Table 4
Summary Table Showing
the Structures
Obtained for Extruded POPC, DOPC, and DPPC Vesicles with Varying mol
% of DOPE-PEG2000a
All formulations
with 0 mol % DOPE-PEG2000 and POPC vesicles with 0.1 mol
% DOPE-PEG2000, contained varying degrees of bi- and multilamellar
vesicles. Formulations
of DPPC with 5 mol% DOPE-PEG2000 comprised a mixture
of cylindrical micelles and unilamellar vesicles.
All formulations
with 0 mol % DOPE-PEG2000 and POPC vesicles with 0.1 mol
% DOPE-PEG2000, contained varying degrees of bi- and multilamellar
vesicles. Formulations
of DPPC with 5 mol% DOPE-PEG2000 comprised a mixture
of cylindrical micelles and unilamellar vesicles.
Conclusion
This
study provides important insights into lamellar lipid self-assembly
and the design of liposomal carriers. Different formulation methods
cannot be expected to yield the same vesicle populations, and their
outcomes depend on the chosen lipid composition. The formulation method
has a pronounced effect on the bulk characteristics of vesicle populations,
in particular on the proportion of vesicles with non-unilamellar morphology.
For example, while REV-formulated POPC vesicles exhibit a smaller
overall proportion of multilamellarity, formulations prepared
using the REV, FT and AS methods all contain similar proportions of
bilamellar liposomes. The introduction of PEGylated lipids also
has a pronounced effect on lamellarity, with addition of only 0.1
mol % PEG (where the PEG is expected to be in the mushroom configuration)
introduced to DOPC samples changing the proportion of lamellarity
from 40 to 0 vol %. These considerations are of huge importance when
designing liposome-based drug delivery and diagnostic platforms. Applications
that require a defined membrane structure demand careful choice of
the formulation method and the lipid composition, which are fundamental
in determining vesicle lamellarity.
Experimental
Section
Materials
DPPC, POPC, DOPC, and 1,2-dioleoyl-sn-glycero-3-phosphoethanolamine-N-[methoxy(polyethylene
glycol)-2000] (DOPE-PEG2000) were purchased from Avanti
Polar Lipids (Alabaster, AL). Methanol (VWR Chemicals) and diisopropyl
ether (VWR Chemicals) were used as purchased. Deuterated water (D2O) was purchased from Sigma-Aldrich. PBS in deuterated water
(dPBS) was prepared by dissolving the appropriate amount of Gibco
PBS tablets (manufacturer’s composition: 10 mM sodium phosphates,
2.68 mM potassium chloride, 140 mM sodium chloride) (ThermoFisher
Scientific) in D2O.
Liposome Preparation
Liposomes were prepared according
to three different methods: film hydration followed by AS or 5 FT
cycles and reverse-phase evaporation vesicle (REV). The lipid concentrations
were 4 mg/mL for the AS and FT methods and 10 mg/mL for the REV method.
Briefly, a solution of phospholipids in chloroform was dried with
an N2 stream in a glass vial. AS method: The
lipid film was kept under vacuum in a freeze dryer overnight and then
hydrated with dPBS under continuous stirring at 55 °C for an
hour (DPPC) or hydrated with dPBS and agitated 6 times × 10 s
on a vortex shaker at room temperature (POPC). FT method: Vesicles were incubated with dPBS and heat cycled five times
between −80 and 55 °C. REV method: A solution
of phospholipids in chloroform was dried in a round-bottom flask by
rotary evaporation under vacuum. The lipid film was resuspended
in methanol (0.8 mL) and 10% PBS in D2O (1 mL) and diisopropyl
ether (3 mL) were added to the mixture. The lipid suspension was sonicated
for 5 min at 5 °C in a sonicating bath to form a stable emulsion.
The organic solvents were slowly removed by rotary evaporation under
vacuum. The vesicle suspension was then kept at 55 °C for
30 min. DPPC, POPC, and DOPC vesicles containing varying amounts of
DOPE-PEG were formulated via the FT method described above. All
of the liposome suspensions were extruded 35 times through a 100 nm
polycarbonate membrane (Whatman Nucleopore Track-Etched membranes)
at 55 °C (DPPC) or 25 °C (POPC and DOPC) using the Avanti
Mini-Extruder kit. Samples for cryo-TEM were prepared in 1× PBS.
Small-Angle Neutron Scattering
Measurements were performed
at the SANS2D beamline of the ISIS pulsed neutron source at the Rutherford
Appleton Laboratory (Didcot, UK) using a sample changer and 1 mm path
length quartz cuvette cells. Samples were measured at 25 °C.
The pinhole collimation was set to L1 = L2 = 4 m while sample-detector distances were
configured to give a scattering vector Q = (4π/λ)sin(θ/2)
range of 0.004–0.722 Å–1, where θ
is the scattering angle and neutrons of wavelengths λ of 1.75–16.5
Å were used simultaneously by time of flight. Data reduction
was performed using MantidPlot,[39] and the
SANS curves were fitted with SasView v3.1.2.[40] For a detailed description of the models used, see the Supporting Information.
Cryo-Transmission Electron
Microscopy
Samples for cryo-TEM
were prepared using an automatic plunge freezer (Leica EM GP). Briefly,
4 μL of the sample was injected on plasma-treated (15 s with
O2/H2 1:1 on a Gatan SOLARIS plasma cleaner)
QuantiFoil R2/1 copper grids (Electron Microscopy Supplies) in an
environmental chamber (relative humidity: 90%, temperature: 20 °C).
Excess suspension was blotted on the filter paper, and the obtained
film was vitrified in liquid ethane. Samples were stored in liquid
nitrogen and imaged at −170 °C (Gatan 914 cryo-holder
for cryo-EM imaging) in a JEOL 2100Plus transmission electron microscope
at 200 kV using Minimum Dose System software. Micrographs were acquired
over 5 s exposure times, using a Gatan Orius SC 1000 camera at either
30k or 15k magnification and image binning of 1 × 1.
DLS Measurements
Samples for DLS were diluted to 1%
of the measured SANS concentration in PBS. Measurements were acquired
with a Malvern ZetaSizer; normalized intensity distributions are reported
as a function of the hydrodynamic diameter.
Data Availability
Raw data are available online at
DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.2577923.
Authors: Haden L Scott; Allison Skinkle; Elizabeth G Kelley; M Neal Waxham; Ilya Levental; Frederick A Heberle Journal: Biophys J Date: 2019-09-16 Impact factor: 4.033
Authors: Adrian Najer; Joshua Blight; Catherine B Ducker; Matteo Gasbarri; Jonathan C Brown; Junyi Che; Håkon Høgset; Catherine Saunders; Miina Ojansivu; Zixuan Lu; Yiyang Lin; Jonathan Yeow; Omar Rifaie-Graham; Michael Potter; Renée Tonkin; Jelle Penders; James J Doutch; Athina Georgiadou; Hanna M G Barriga; Margaret N Holme; Aubrey J Cunnington; Laurence Bugeon; Margaret J Dallman; Wendy S Barclay; Francesco Stellacci; Jake Baum; Molly M Stevens Journal: ACS Cent Sci Date: 2022-05-03 Impact factor: 18.728
Authors: Nabil A Alhakamy; Giuseppe Caruso; Mohammed W Al-Rabia; Shaimaa M Badr-Eldin; Hibah M Aldawsari; Hani Z Asfour; Samah Alshehri; Sami H Alzaharani; Meshari M Alhamdan; Waleed Y Rizg; Ahmed N Allam Journal: Pharmaceutics Date: 2021-04-29 Impact factor: 6.321
Authors: Jeremy P Bost; Hanna Barriga; Margaret N Holme; Audrey Gallud; Marco Maugeri; Dhanu Gupta; Taavi Lehto; Hadi Valadi; Elin K Esbjörner; Molly M Stevens; Samir El-Andaloussi Journal: ACS Nano Date: 2021-09-10 Impact factor: 15.881
Authors: Anna P Constantinou; Valeria Nele; James J Doutch; Joana S Correia; Roman V Moiseev; Martina Cihova; David C A Gaboriau; Jonathan Krell; Vitaliy V Khutoryanskiy; Molly M Stevens; Theoni K Georgiou Journal: Macromolecules Date: 2022-02-14 Impact factor: 5.985
Authors: Michael Potter; Adrian Najer; Anna Klöckner; Shaodong Zhang; Margaret N Holme; Valeria Nele; Junyi Che; Lucia Massi; Jelle Penders; Catherine Saunders; James J Doutch; Andrew M Edwards; Oscar Ces; Molly M Stevens Journal: ACS Nano Date: 2020-12-08 Impact factor: 15.881