Skip to main content
Log in

Comparison of CW-EPR and ESEEM technique for determination of water permeability profile in liposome membranes

  • Published:
Applied Magnetic Resonance Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The hydrophobicity profile across a membrane is an important parameter of biological membranes as it defines the barrier for permeation of polar molecules into the cell interior and of the stability of transmembrane proteins. In this work, the hydrophobicity profile was measured by conventional continuos-wave electron paramagnetic resonance (CW-EPR) and by electron spin echo envelope modulation (ESEEM) in two liposome suspensions with different ionic strengths in order to compare the sensitivity of both methods for the determination of the water penetration depth into the liposome membrane. Multilamellar liposomes from egg-phosphatidylcholine, cholesterol and dicetyl phosphate were prepared in deuterium oxide, buffered with phosphate buffer with or without NaCl at the phosphate concentrations 0.1 or 0.01 M. Liposomes were spin labeled with stearic acids spin probes with the nitroxide group at different positions on the acyl chain. The deuterium penetration depth was measured by the ESEEM technique and the signal was analyzed in the frequency domain (Fourier transform [FT]-ESEEM). The ratio of the intensities of FT-ESEEM lines at deuterium and hydrogen Larmor frequencies was used as a measures of the water penetration depth. It was also indirectly determined from the hyperfine splitting constants in frozen and in fluid state, measured by CW-EPR, as they depend on the polarity of the nitroxide group environment. The comparison of the two techniques demonstrated that FT-ESEEM is more sensitive to the changes on the surface of the membrane and thus more appropriate for the determination of the hydrophobic barrier than the conventional CW-EPR method.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Griffith O.H., Dehlinger P.J., Van S.P.: J. Membr. Biol.15, 159–192 (1974)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Subczynski W.K., Wisniewska A., Yin J.J., Hyde J.S., Kusumi A.: Biochemistry33, 7670–7681 (1994)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Hiff T., Kevan L.: J. Phys. Chem.93, 1572–1575 (1989)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Bartucci R., Guzzi R., Marsh D., Sportelli L.: Biophys. J.84, 1025–1030 (2003)

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  5. Noethig-Laslo V., Cevc P., Arcon D., Šentjurc M.: Orig. Life Evol. Biosph.34, 237–242 (2003)

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  6. Marsh D.: Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA98, 7777–7782 (2001)

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  7. Kusumi A., Pasenkievicz-Gierula M.: Biochemistry27, 4407–4415 (1988)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. New R.R.C.: Liposomes: a Practical Approach, p. 36, Oxford: Oxford University Press 1990.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Barbon A., Brustolon M., Maniero A.L., Romanelli M., Brunel L.C.: Phys. Chem. Chem. Phys.1, 4015–4023 (1999)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Johnson M.E.: Biochemistry20, 3319–3328 (1981)

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Noethig-Laslo, V., Cevc, P., Arčon, D. et al. Comparison of CW-EPR and ESEEM technique for determination of water permeability profile in liposome membranes. Appl. Magn. Reson. 27, 303–309 (2004). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03166324

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03166324

Keywords

Navigation