Advertisement

European Biophysics Journal

, Volume 40, Issue 6, pp 727–736 | Cite as

Hydrophobicity drives the cellular uptake of short cationic peptide ligands

  • Anju Gupta
  • Deendayal Mandal
  • Yousef Ahmadibeni
  • Keykavous Parang
  • Geoffrey BothunEmail author
Original Paper

Abstract

Short cationic linear peptide analogs (LPAs, prepared as Arg-C n -Arg-C n -Lys, where C n represents an alkyl linkage with n = 4, 7 or 11) were synthesized and tested in human breast carcinoma BT-20 and CCRF-CEM leukemia cells for their application as targeting ligands. With constant LPA charge (+4), increasing the alkyl linkage increases the hydrophobic/hydrophilic balance and provides a systematic means of examining combined electrostatic and hydrophobic peptide–membrane interactions. Fluorescently conjugated LPA-C11 (F-LPA-C11) demonstrated significant uptake, whereas there was negligible uptake of the shorter LPAs. By varying temperature (4°C and 37°C) and cell type, the results suggest that LPA-C11 internalization is nonendocytic and nonspecific. The effect of LPA binding on the phase behavior, structure, and permeability of model membranes composed of dipalmitoylphosphatidylcholine and dipalmitoylphosphatidylserine (DPPC/DPPS, 85/15) was studied using differential scanning calorimetry (DSC), cryogenic transmission electron microscopy (cryo-TEM), and fluorescence leakage studies to gain insight into the LPA uptake mechanism. While all LPAs led to phase separation, LPA-C11, possessing the longest alkyl linkage, was able to penetrate into the bilayer and caused holes to form, which led to membrane disintegration. This was confirmed by rapid and complete dye release by LPA-C11. We propose that LPA-C11 achieves uptake by anchoring to the membrane via hydrophobicity and forming transient membrane voids. LPAs may be advantageous as drug transporter ligands because they are small, water soluble, and easy to prepare.

Keywords

Cell-penetrating peptide Lipid membrane Phase separation Calorimetry Pore formation 

Notes

Acknowledgments

We acknowledge financial support from American Cancer Society grant RSG-07-290-01-CDD and National Science Foundation grant CHE 0748555.

Supplementary material

249_2011_685_MOESM1_ESM.pdf (1.9 mb)
Supplementary material 1 (PDF 1,928 kb)

References

  1. Andrushchenko VV, Aarabi MH, Nguyen LT, Prenner EJ, Vogel HJ (2008) Thermodynamics of the interactioc of tryptophan-rich cathelicidin antimicrobial peptides with model and natural membranes. Biochim Biophys Acta 1778:1004–1014PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Baciu CL, May S (2004) Stability of charged, mixed lipid bilayers: effect of electrostatic coupling between the monolayers. J Phys Condens Matter 16:455–460CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bouffioux O, Berquand A, Eeman M, Paquot M, Fufrene YF, Brasseur R, Deleu M (2007) Molecular organization of surfactin-phospholipid monolayers: effect of phospholipid chain length and polar head. Biochim Biophys Acta 1768:758–768Google Scholar
  4. Chan DI, Prenner EJ, Vogel HJ (2006) Tryptophan- and arginine-rich antimicrobial peptides: structures and mechanisms of action. Biochim Biophys Acta 1758(9):184–202Google Scholar
  5. De Pinto V, Tomasello F, Messina A, Guarino F, Benz R, La Mendola D, Magri A, Milardi D, Pappalardo G (2007) Determination of the conformation of the human VDAC1 N-terminal peptide, a protein moiety essential for the functional properties of the pore. Chem Bio Chem 8(7):744–756PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Deshayes S, Heitz A, Morris MC, Charnet P, Divita G, Heitz F (2004) Insight into the mechanism of internalization of the cell-penetrating carrier peptide Pep-1 through conformational analysis. Biochemistry 43:449–457Google Scholar
  7. Deshayes S, Morris MC, Divita G, Heitz F (2005) Cell-penetrating peptides: tools for intracellular delivery of therapeutics. Cell Mol Life Sci 62(16):1839–1849PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. El-Andaloussi S, Holm T, Langel U (2005) Cell-penetrating peptides: mechanisms and applications. Curr Pharm Des 11(28):3597–3611PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Fawell S, Seery J, Daikh Y, Moore C, Chen LL, Pepinsky B, Barsoum J (1994) Tat-mediated delivery of heterologous proteins into cells. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 91(2):664–668PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Futaki S (2002) Arginine-rich peptides:potential for intracellular delivery of macromolecules and the mystery of the translocation mechanisms. Int J Pharm 245:1–7PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Futaki S (2005) Membrane permeable arginine rich peptides and the translocation mechanisms. Adv Drug Deliver Rev 57:547–558CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Hale JD, Hancock RE (2007) Alternative mechanisms of action of cationic antimicrobial peptides on bacteria. Exp Rev Anti-Infect Ther 5(6):951–959CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Henriques ST, Melo MN, Castanho MA (2006) Cell penetrating peptides and antimicrobial peptides: how different are they? Biochem J 399:1–7PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Herce HD, Garcia AE (2007a) Cell penetrating peptides: how do they do it? J Biol Phys 33(5–6):345–356PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Herce HD, Garcia AE (2007b) Molecular dynamics simulations suggest a mechanism for translocation of the HIV-1 TAT peptide across lipid membranes. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 104(52):20805–20810PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Johnsson M, Edwards K (2003) Liposomes, disks, and spherical micelles: aggregate structure in mixtures of gel phase phosphatidylcholines and poly (ethylene glycol)-phospholipids. Biophys J 85(6):839–847CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Joliot A, Prochiantz A (2004) Transduction peptides: from technology to physiology. Nat Cell Biol 6(3):189–196PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Kiyota T, Lee S, Sugihara G (1996) Design and synthesis of amphiphilic a-helical model peptides with systematically varied hydrophobic-hydrophilic balance and their interaction with lipid- and bio-membranes. Biochemistry 35:13196–13204PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Lindsay MA (2002) Peptide-mediated cell delivery: application in protein target validation. Curr Opin Pharmacol 2:587–594PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Lohner K, Prenner E (1999) Differential scanning calorimetry and X-ray diffraction studies of the specificity of the interaction of antimicrobial peptides with membrane-mimetic systems. Biochim Biophys Acta 1462:141–156PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Lundberg P, El-Andaloussi S, Sutlu T, Johansson H, Langel U (2007) Delivery of short interfering RNA using endosomolytic cell-penetrating peptides. FASEB 21:664–671CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Magzoub M, Kilk K, Eriksson LE, Langel U, Graslund A (2001) Interaction and structure of cell-penetrating peptides in the presence of phospholipid vesicles. Biochim Biophys Acta 1512:77–89PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Olofsson A, Borowik T, Grobner G, Sauer-Eriksson AE (2007) Negatively charged phospholipid membranes induce amyloid formation of medin via an a-helical intermedicate. J Mol Biol 374:186–194PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Pandit S, Bostick D, Berkowitz ML (2003) Mixed bilayer containing dipalmitoylphophatidylcholine and dipalmitolyphosphatidylserine: lipid complexation, ion binding and electrostatics. Biophys J 85:120–131CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Patel LN, Zaro JL, Shen WC (2007) Cell penetrating peptides: intracellular pathways and pharmaceutical perspectives. Pharmaceut Res 24(11):1977–1992CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Reuter M, Scwieger C, Meister A, Karlsson G, Blume A (2009) Poly-L-lysines and poly-L-arginines induce leakage of negatively charged phospholipid vesicles and translocate through the lipid bilayer upon electrostatic binding to the membrane. Biophys Chem 144:27–37PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Rex S (1996) Pore formation induced by the peptide melittin in different lipid vesicle membranes. Biophys Chem 58(1–2):75–85PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Schwieger C, Blume A (2007) Interaction of poly (L-lysines) with negatively charged membranes: an FT-IR and DSC study. Eur Biophys J 36(4–5):437–450PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Sevcsik E, Pabst G, Richter W, Danner S, Amenitsch H, Lohner K (2008) Interaction of LL-37 with model membrane systems of different complexity influence of the lipid matrix. Biophys J 94:688–699CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Silhol M, Tyagi M, Giacca M, Lebleu B, Vives E (2002) Different mechanisms for cellular internalization of the HIV-1 Tat-derived cell penetrating peptide and recombinant proteins fused to tat. Eur J Biochem 269(2):494–501PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Stewart KM, Horton KL, Kelley SO (2008) Cell-penetrating peptides as delivery vehicles for biology and medicine. Org Biomol Chem 6(13):2242–2255PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Torchilin VP, Rammohan R, Weissig V, Levchenko TS (2001) TAT peptide on the surface of liposomes affords their efficient intracellular delivery even at low temperature and in the presence of metabolic inhibitors. Proc Nat Acad Sci USA 98(15):8786–8791PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Tung CH, Weissleder R (2003) Arginine containing peptides as delivery vectors. Adv Drug Deliv Rev 55(2):281–294PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Vives E, Richard JP, Rispal C, Lebleu B (2003) TAT peptide internalization: seeking the mechanism of entry. Curr Protein Pept Sci 4(2):125–132PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Vives E, Schmidt J, Pelegrin A (2008) Cell-penetrating and cell-targeting peptides in drug delivery. BBA-Rev Cancer 1786(2):126–138Google Scholar
  36. Ye G, Nam NH, Kumar A, Saleh A, Shenoy DB, Amiji MM, Lin X, Sun G, Parang K (2007) Synthesis and evaluation of tripodal peptide analogues for cellular delivery of phosphopeptides. J Med Chem 50(15):604–617CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Ye G, Gupta A, De Luca R, Parang K, Bothun GD (2010) Bilayer disruption and liposome restructuring by a homologous series of small arg-rich synthetic peptides. Colloid Surf B 76(1):76–81CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Ziegler A (2008) Thermodynamic studies and binding mechanisms of cell-penetrating peptides with lipids and glycosaminoglycans. Adv Drug Del Rev 60(4–5):580–597CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© European Biophysical Societies' Association 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Anju Gupta
    • 1
  • Deendayal Mandal
    • 2
  • Yousef Ahmadibeni
    • 2
    • 3
  • Keykavous Parang
    • 2
  • Geoffrey Bothun
    • 1
    Email author
  1. 1.Department of Chemical EngineeringUniversity of Rhode IslandKingstonUSA
  2. 2.Department of Biomedical and Pharmaceutical SciencesUniversity of Rhode IslandKingstonUSA
  3. 3.Department of ChemistryColumbus State UniversityColumbusUSA

Personalised recommendations