Here we present two ultrafast protocols for reconstitution of membrane proteins into fusogenic proteoliposomes, and fusion of such proteoliposomes with target lipid bilayers for detergent-free delivery of these membrane proteins into the postfusion bilayer. The combination of these approaches enables fast and easily controlled assembly of complex multi-component membrane systems.
Detergents are indispensable for delivery of membrane proteins into 30-100 nm small unilamellar vesicles, while more complex, larger model lipid bilayers are less compatible with detergents.
Here we describe a strategy for bypassing this fundamental limitation using fusogenic oppositely charged liposomes bearing a membrane protein of interest. Fusion between such vesicles occurs within 5 min in a low ionic strength buffer. Positively charged fusogenic liposomes can be used as simple shuttle vectors for detergent-free delivery of membrane proteins into biomimetic target lipid bilayers, which are negatively charged. We also show how to reconstitute membrane proteins into fusogenic proteoliposomes with a fast 30-min protocol.
Combining these two approaches, we demonstrate a fast assembly of an electron transport chain consisting of two membrane proteins from E. coli, a primary proton pump bo3-oxidase and F1Fo ATP synthase, in membranes of vesicles of various sizes, ranging from 0.1 to >10 microns, as well as ATP production by this chain.
Functionalization of artificial lipid bilayers with membrane proteins is a key step in assembly of membrane model systems. The simplest model, proteoliposomes (PL), consists of small (30-200 nm diameter) unilamellar vesicles (SUV, also called liposomes), with proteins integrated into their membranes. PL are traditionally formed in two steps1. First, preformed SUV are mixed with a membrane protein of interest and a detergent at a concentration above its critical micelle concentration (CMC). Second, the detergent is removed with various dialysis, "bio-beads" or gel filtration techniques, leaving the protein in the membrane. The latter approach is much faster (~30 min1) and is therefore preferable for reconstitution of fragile and sensitive membrane proteins, while the first two approaches are limited by detergent removal speed, which takes many hours and may cause a substantial loss of activity and loss of structural integrity of the proteins. Functionalization of larger vesicles (large unilamellar vesicles, LUV, up to 1 µm diameter) by this approach is more challenging, as vesicle size gets reduced after detergent removal, and it is not possible for giant unilamellar vesicles (GUV, >1 µm), as they are destabilized by detergents (but see Johnson et al.2 for slow 2D-crystallization of membrane proteins in large bilayers). Alternative approaches for GUV membrane functionalization3,4,5 exist but are laborious, time consuming, and still require some detergent at concentrations below CMC. More complex or fragile lipid models (for example, Droplet Hydrogel Bilayers6 and 3D printable Droplet Interface Bilayer-based artificial tissues7) cannot tolerate detergents. Quickly emerging synthetic biology applications8,9,10 critically depend on functionalization of such complex membrane structures. Therefore, an easy and robust method allowing fast and gentle delivery of membrane proteins into the target fragile bilayers is highly sought in the field.
An alternative, detergent-free protein delivery method is vesicle fusion, where interacting vesicles' membranes unite into the intact postfusion bilayer, while their intravesicular aqueous contents get mixed, without being released into the external environment. Vesicle fusion is enabled and driven either by conformational rearrangements within complementary fusogenic agents (some proteins11,12 and peptides13 or specially modified DNA14) located in the contacting bilayers, or Coulombic interactions between lipid bilayers formed of complementarily charged cationic and anionic lipids15,16, or cationic bilayers and negatively charged proteins17.
The former approach requires the presence of fusogenic agents in the interacting membranes prior to fusion, is relatively slow (~30 min to reach half-maximum of fusion12,18), but can be applied to both natural and artificial membranes.
An advantage of the approach using fusogenic lipids (Figure 1) is that it enables much faster membrane fusion (~1 min to reach half-maximum, and 5-10 min to finish the reaction). Additionally, the extent of fusion can be controlled by i) an easy to formulate relative content of charged lipids in fusogenic bilayers, and ii) ionic and, in general, osmotic strength of the reaction medium (salts at above 50 mM and, for example, sucrose15 are shown to stop fusion), or a combination of both. To initiate fusion, oppositely charged fusogenic vesicles are mixed in a low (typically 10-20 mM salt) ionic strength medium for 5-10 min. A relative disadvantage of the method is that cationic lipids may exert a negative effect on functionality of membrane proteins in cationic proteoliposomes prior to fusion, especially in low ionic strength, but this effect is reversible and mitigated by a natural lipid composition of the post-fusion membrane and its return to the normal ionic strength medium.
1. Preparation of fusogenic SUV and LUV
2. Formation of Fusogenic GUV by Inverted Emulsion Method
NOTE: This procedure is illustrated in Figure 2.
3. Monitoring Vesicle Fusion with Cobalt-Calcein Method
4. Fast Reconstitution of Membrane Proteins into Fusogenic Proteoliposomes
NOTE: This procedure is illustrated in Figure 4A.
5. Functional Tests of Protein Activity in Proteoliposomes
NOTE: Both proteins used in this study are powerful proton pumps, which pump H+ into proteoliposomes upon addition of their substrates (Coenzyme Q1 for bo3-oxidase, and ATP for F1Fo, respectively), thus building a proton gradient across the membrane (ΔpH). In case of successful co-reconstitution by fusion, such acidification can be observed as a decrease in fluorescence of a pH-sensitive probe ACMA (9-Amino-6-Chloro-2-Methoxyacridine)12,15, which is used routinely for such tasks (Figure 4B-C). Additionally substrate-specific activity of the proteins (Coenzyme Q1 oxidation by bo3-oxidase22 and ATP hydrolysis by F1Fo23,24) can be monitored spectrophotometrically using various methods. Here, we demonstrate ATP hydrolysis activity of F1Fo PL using an ATP regenerating assay (Figure 4D), where two enzymes (pyruvate kinase (PK) and lactate dehydrogenase (LDH) maintain a constant concentration of ATP as follows. PK recycles ATP by converting ADP produced by F1Fo back into ATP at the expense of its substrate phosphoenolpyruvate (PEP). Pyruvate, which is a product of this reaction, is converted into lactate by LDH at the expense of NADH, the oxidation of which can be monitored as decreasing optical density at 340 nm.
6. Testing Influence of Lipid Environment and Ionic Strength on Functionality of Membrane Proteins in Fusogenic Proteoliposomes
7. Delivery of Membrane Proteins into LUV and GUV by Fusogenic Proteoliposomes
8. Assembly of Electron Transport Chain from Individual Components in Membranes of LUV and GUV, and ATP Production by this Chain.
NOTE: A schematic of this procedure is illustrated in Figure 7A. ATP produced in this experiment will be registered by the luciferin-luciferase system, where conversion of synthesized ATP into pyrophosphate and AMP by luciferase is followed by light emission registered with a luminometer. We recommend using a single-tube luminometer, instead of the less sensitive microplate luminometers.
The use of fusogenic complementary-charged proteoliposomes for fast detergent-free delivery of membrane proteins into target bilayer membranes includes three steps (Figure 1): A, formation of fusogenic SUV from lipid mixtures with high content of charged lipids; these SUV may optionally carry an intravesicular load; B, conversion of fusogenic SUV into PL using our fast membrane protein reconstitution; C, fusion of fusogenic PL with target bilayers in a low-salt medium, followed by addition of high salt to stop the fusion reaction. In case of large vesicles (D), a preferable strategy is to deliver membrane protein into the anionic target bilayer, which provides a better lipid environment for activity of membrane proteins (discussed further in the text).
The GUV formation protocol with inverted emulsion method is highlighted in detail in Figure 2. We prefer to use hexadecane in the lipid-oil mixture due to its relatively high (18 °C) freezing temperature, which allows easy removal of solidified oil after GUV pelleting.
Figure 3 demonstrates vesicle fusion using cobalt-calcein-EDTA method. Fusion is seen only when complementary charged vesicles are used in low salt buffers, while higher salt concentrations (>50 mM14) or the use of non-fusogenic vesicles demonstrate no fusion.
This fast protocol of reconstitution of membrane proteins into fusogenic SUV is illustrated in Figure 4A. Using this protocol, we demonstrate fast reconstitution of primary proton pump bo3-oxidase and F1Fo ATP synthase into PL, and assessment of their specific activity in these membranes. It is important to mention that the yield of protein reconstitution does not depend on the charge of a lipid used15 and is about 50 – 75%25,12, and that after reconstitution into PL, the protein can be stored for at least three days, even at room temperature without obvious loss of protein activity. This procedure also provides unidirectional orientation of ATP synthase, where more than 95% of it has its hydrophilic moiety F1 oriented outwards15,26.
Figure 5 demonstrates that the proton pumping activity of F1Fo (Panel A) and bo3-oxidase (Panel B) in cationic lipids is reduced and sensitive to low ionic strength, as compared to anionic and neutral lipid environment, but this effect is mitigated in postfusion membranes after fusing PL+ with anionic LUV–.
Figure 6 demonstrates delivery of F1Fo ATP synthase into membranes of large vesicles. In this experiment, PL+ and 800 nm LUV– were fused in 20 mM KCl for 5 min, and the reaction product was pelleted to remove unfused PL+, resuspended and assayed for proton pumping. Control experiments showed no proton pumping when LUV0 instead of LUV– were used in fusion reaction (black trace), or empty LUV– alone were assayed (blue trace).
Fast assembly of a functioning electron transport chain in membranes of large vesicles by means of fusogenic PL is shown in Figure 7. We used F1Fo SUV+ and bo3 SUV+ for fusion with 800 nm LUV–, and demonstrated ATP production by this chain in the postfusion vesicles by sequentially adding Coenzyme Q1 and DTT to energize membranes, and then adding phosphate to trigger ATP synthesis by F1Fo.
Figure 1: Conception of ultrafast detergent-free delivery of membrane proteins into target lipid bilayers via fusion of unilamellar vesicles formed of complementary charged lipids. (A) formation of cationic and anionic fusogenic small unilamellar vesicles (SUV+, SUV–) optionally loaded with intravesicular cargoes. (B) Conversion of fusogenic SUV into fusogenic proteoliposomes (PL) by reconstitution of membrane proteins. (C) Detergent-free delivery of membrane proteins into postfusion membranes with fusogenic PL. (D) Preferable strategy for delivery of membrane proteins into membranes of large vesicles, illustrated by the fusion between 100 nm PL+ and 800 nm LUV–. Please click here to view a larger version of this figure.
Figure 2: GUV formation protocol with an inverted emulsion method. (A) Formation of a lipid monolayer on the border between the oil-lipid mixture and water. (B) Formation of an inverted (water-in-oil) emulsion. (C) GUV formation by passing the emulsion through the oil-water border by means of centrifugation. (D) Cooling of the tube below <18 °C to solidify and remove the oil. (E) A fluorescent microscopy image of a GUV containing fluorescent lipid (1% weight fraction cholesteryl-Bodipy-FL12) in its membrane (green) and a polar fluorophore (1 mM Sulforhodamine 101) in vesicle`s lumen (red). Please click here to view a larger version of this figure.
Figure 3: Lipid vesicles fusion studied with the cobalt-calcein-EDTA method. (A) Schematic of the method, where free calcein is released from a non-fluorescent cobalt-calcein complex by EDTA. (B) Fusion of SUV in various KCl concentrations. (C) Release of the intravesicular calcein by addition of EDTA and Triton X-100 detergent to postfusion vesicles shown in B as described in text. The fusion extent (%) for red trace is calculated by dividing the maximal background-corrected fusion signal (1 – 2) by the background-corrected maximal signal following the release of encapsulated calcein (3 – 2) and multiplying by 100. Please click here to view a larger version of this figure.
Figure 4: Ultrafast reconstitution of bo3-oxidase and F1Fo into fusogenic proteoliposomes, and protein activity measurements in such proteoliposomes. (A) Schematic of the reconstitution protocol. (B) Coenzyme Q1 oxidation driven proton pumping by bo3-oxidase in PL measured with ACMA quenching (explained in text). (C) ATP hydrolysis-driven proton pumping by F1Fo in PL measured with ACMA quenching (explained in text). (D) ATP hydrolysis by F1Fo in PL measured with ATP-regenerating system (explained in text), and its stimulation by the uncoupler. Please click here to view a larger version of this figure.
Figure 5: Influence of the lipid environment and ionic strength on activity of membrane proteins. Proton pumping by F1Fo (A) and bo3-oxidase (B) in cationic PL (red trace), anionic PL (blue trace), neutral PL (black trace), and cationic PL fused with anionic LUV (green trace) in 20 and 100 mM KCl. Control trace (gray) shows no change in proton pumping by F1Fo PL– upon mixing with SUV–. Please click here to view a larger version of this figure.
Figure 6: Delivery of F1Fo ATP synthase into membranes of 800 nm LUV– via fusion with PL+. (A) schematic of the experiment: PL+ and 800 nm LUV– were fused in 1 mM MOPS (pH 7.4), 1 mM MgCl2, 20 mM KCl for 5 min, pelleted to remove unfused PL, and resuspended in the same buffer. (B) Proton pumping by the postfusion LUV (red trace). Control experiments showed no ACMA quenching when PL0 were mixed with LUV– (black trace), or empty LUV– alone were assayed (blue trace). Please click here to view a larger version of this figure.
Figure 7: 5-min detergent-free assembly of an electron transport chain in membranes of 800 nm LUV– via fusion with PL+. (A) schematic of the experiment: 100 nm F1Fo PL+ and 100 nm bo3-oxidase PL+ were fused with LUV–, as described in Figure 6. Fusion was stopped by adding KCl and MOPS to 100 and 50 mM, respectively. The membranes were mixed with ADP-luciferin-luciferase cocktail and energized by addition of DTT and Q1, as described in the text. ATP production was initiated by addition of 1 mM phosphate (Pi) and monitored real time with luciferase-luciferin system as described in the text. (B) ATP synthesis by postfusion vesicles (red trace). Control experiments showed no ATP production when PL+ were mixed with LUV– in high salt (grey), or PL0 were mixed with LUV– (black). ATP synthesis rate was calculated as explained in the text (steps 8.8 – 8.9). Please click here to view a larger version of this figure.
The following few issues need to be considered for success of this experimental approach:
Choice of lipid charge for proteoliposomes and target bilayers: Cationic lipids are not found in nature, while anionic lipids are abundant in biological membranes reaching, for example, ~25, 35 and 20% in inner membrane of E. coli, plasma membrane of yeast S. cerevisiae, and inner mitochondrial membranes of many species, respectively27,28,29. It would be reasonable to expect that the functionality of membrane proteins in PL+ may be affected by the strength of a positive charge of the bilayer, which in turn would depend on a relative content of cationic lipid in the bilayer and external ionic strength. Therefore, it is important to address experimentally to what extent functionality of membrane proteins of interest would depend on the charge of the cationic lipid environment. Here, we show that both F1Fo ATP synthase and bo3-oxidase are sensitive to cationic lipid environment, but we managed to modulate and reverse this effect by first placing the proteins in PL+ and delivering them into anionic accepting bilayers, and then increasing the ionic strength of the reaction medium after fusion is finished.
Choice of a particular cationic lipid: Most commercially available cationic lipids are of non-triacylglyceride nature; therefore a potential candidate lipid must be tested for compatibility with membrane proteins of interest. We found previously15 that the ATP synthase used in this study showed its best performance in PL+ formed of ethyl-PC, which has the highest structural similarity to the natural triacylglyceride lipids, while in DOTAP (non-triacylglyceride lipid) PL+ this protein was less active.
Vesicle fusion assays: True vesicle fusion (when intravesicular liquid contents mix) needs to be differentiated from intermediate hemi-fusion states, when vesicles adhere to each other without mixing their aqueous content, but readily mix contents of their external or both lipid leaflets30. In case of suboptimal lipid mixtures or certain conditions, vesicles also demonstrate pronounced liquid content leakage during fusion31. Minimal concentrations of charged lipids in fusogenic mixtures enabling true fusion need to be found experimentally for each lipid species, but in general, it is found that membranes with less than 10% charged lipids are rendered non-fusogenic 32.
While forming fusogenic SUV in presence of multi-valent ions, it is important not to mix oppositely charged components, as this may cause immediate clumping and aggregation of lipids by these ions. For example, while preparing SUV for the cobalt-calcein-EDTA method, it is important to avoid mixing a cationic lipid mixture with EDTA to prevent clogging of the polycarbonate filter by clumped components.
It is also important to mention that the cobalt-calcein-EDTA method, while being very sensitive and convenient for real-time fusion monitoring, may still underestimate the extent of fusion due to 1) self-quenching of fluorescence of free calcein inside postfusion vesicles, which is expected to reach 1 mM, while the self-quenching threshold is reported to be around 20 µM33, and 2) surface-bound cobalt-calcein, which remains bound to SUV+ even after passing through the gel-filtration resin and colors vesicles to a bright orange color, while SUV0 have a pale orange color. Also note that release of the bound cobalt-calcein upon addition of detergent Triton X-100 in the presence of EDTA generates much stronger signals for SUV+ (Figure 3C, red trace) than SUV0 (grey trace).
Perspectives: We expect that the fast approaches described here may greatly facilitate and speed up assembly of complex membranes for the needs of emerging synthetic biology applications. Our membrane protein reconstitution protocol takes only half an hour for reconstitution of fragile large membrane proteins known to be sensitive to lengthy dialysis-based reconstitution techniques, while this fusogenic approach takes only 5 – 10 min to deliver such proteins into large lipid bilayers. Here, we demonstrate the advantages of these approaches by manipulating E. coli F1Fo ATP synthase, which is an example of a fragile protein. It is made of 23 subunits and is known to readily lose its integrity if exposed to suboptimal conditions (for example, heat) during/after solubilization, but being used in these procedures, the protein demonstrates reproducibly high activity in proton pumping.
The authors have nothing to disclose.
Authors are thankful to Robert Gennis from University of Illinois and Christoph von Ballmoos from University of Bern for providing a plasmid and a strain to express bo3-oxidase. The project was supported by BBSRC grant BB/L01985X/1 to R.I. and R.B.
DOPC neutral lipid | Avanti Lipids | 850375 | |
POPA anionic lipid | Avanti Lipids | 840857 | |
E-PC cationic lipid | Avanti Lipids | 890704 | |
Cholesteryl-Bodipy-FL12 | Thermofisher | C3927MP | |
Sephadex G-50, Super Fine | Sigma | G5050 | |
Ficoll 400, Type 400-DL | Sigma | F8016 | |
ACMA | Sigma | A5806 | |
Nigericin | Sigma | N7143 | |
ATP | Sigma | A26209 | |
Q1 | Sigma | C7956 | |
DTT | Sigma | D0632 | |
PEP | Sigma | 860077 | |
NADH | Sigma | N8129 | |
PK | Sigma | P9136-1KU | |
LDH | Sigma | L1254-1KU | |
Luciferin | Sigma | L6882 | |
Luciferase | Sigma/Roche | 10411523001 | |
Calcein | Insight Biotechnology | sc-202090 | |
CoCl2 | Sigma | C8661 | |
EDTA | Sigma | E6758 | |
Sulforhodamine 101 | Sigma | S7635 | |
Extrusion system | Avanti Extruder | ||
Single tube luminometer, model Sirius L | Titertek Berthold | ||
Polycarbonate filter, D19 mm | Sigma, Whatman NucleporeTrack-Etched Membranes | WHA800309, WHA800284 | 100 or 200 nm to form SUV, and 400 or 800 nm for LUV |
Buffers used in the paper | Composition | ||
Name | Company | Catalog Number | コメント |
Buffer A | 100 mM KCl, 50 mM MOPS pH 7.4, 1 mM MgCl2 | ||
Buffer B | 20 mM KCl, 10 mM MOPS pH 7.4, 0.1 mM MgCl2 | ||
Buffer C | 100 mM KCl, 10 mM MOPS pH 7.4 | ||
Buffer D | 1 mM MOPS pH 7.4 Various concentrations of KCl |