Fluorescence and Absorbance Spectroscopy Methods to Study Membrane Perturbations by Antimicrobial Host Defense Peptides

Protocol
First Online:
Part of the Methods in Molecular Biology book series (MIMB, volume 1548)

Abstract

Antimicrobial peptides (AMPs) are currently intensely studied because of their potential as new bactericidal and bacteriostatic agents. The mechanism of action of numerous AMPs involves the permeabilization of bacterial membranes. Several methods have been developed to study peptide–membrane interactions; in particular optical spectroscopy methods are widely used. The intrinsic fluorescence properties of the Trp indole ring in Trp-containing AMPs can be exploited by measuring the fluorescence blue shift and acrylamide-induced fluorescence quenching. One important aspect of such studies is the use of distinct models of the bacterial membrane, in most cases large unilamellar vesicles (LUVs) with different, yet well-defined, phospholipid compositions. Deploying LUVs that are preloaded with fluorescent dyes, such as calcein, also allows for the study of vesicle permeabilization by AMPs. In addition, experiments using genetically engineered live Escherichia coli cells can be used to distinguish between the effects of AMPs on the outer and inner membranes of gram-negative bacteria. In combination, these methods can provide a detailed insight into the mode of action of AMPs.

Key words

Fluorescence spectroscopy Absorbance spectroscopy Antimicrobial peptides Tryptophan Escherichia coli Membrane permeabilization Large unilamellar vesicles 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Notes

Acknowledgments

Research on antimicrobial peptides has been funded by a grant from the “Novel alternatives to antibiotics” program from the Canadian Institutes of Health Research.

E. coli ML35p was kindly provided by Dr. Robert Lehrer from the David Geffen School of Medicine at UCLA, Los Angeles, CA.

References

  1. 1.
    Nguyen LT, Haney EF, Vogel HJ (2011) The expanding scope of antimicrobial peptide structures and their modes of action. Trends Biotechnol 29:464–472CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Matsuzaki K (2009) Control of cell selectivity of antimicrobial peptides. Biochim Biophys Acta 1788:1687–1692CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Yeaman MR, Yount NY (2003) Mechanisms of antimicrobial peptide action and resistance. Pharmacol Rev 55:27–55CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Epand RM, Vogel HJ (1999) Diversity of antimicrobial peptides and their mechanisms of action. Biochim Biophys Acta 1462:11–28CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Jenssen H, Hamill P, Hancock REW (2006) Peptide antimicrobial agents. Clin Microbiol Rev 19:491–511CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Shai Y (2002) Mode of action of membrane active antimicrobial peptides. Biopolymers 66:236–248CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Lohner K, Sevcsik E, Pabst G (2008) Liposome-based biomembrane mimetic systems: implications for lipid-peptide interactions. In: Advances in planar lipid bilayers and liposomes. Elsevier, Amsterdam, pp 103–132Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Riedl S, Rinner B, Asslaber M et al (2011) In search of a novel target - phosphatidylserine exposed by non-apoptotic tumor cells and metastases of malignancies with poor treatment efficacy. Biochim Biophys Acta 1808:2638–2645CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Abraham T, Lewis RN, Hodges RS et al (2005) Isothermal titration calorimetry studies of the binding of the antimicrobial peptide gramicidin S to phospholipid bilayer membranes. Biochemistry 44:11279–11285CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Lohner K, Prenner EJ (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 1462:141–156CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Andrushchenko VV, Aarabi MH, Nguyen LT et al (2008) Thermodynamics of the interactions of tryptophan-rich cathelicidin antimicrobial peptides with model and natural membranes. Biochim Biophys Acta 1778:1004–1014CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Andrushchenko VV, Vogel HJ, Prenner EJ (2006) Solvent-dependent structure of two tryptophan-rich antimicrobial peptides and their analogs studied by FTIR and CD spectroscopy. Biochim Biophys Acta 1758:1596–1608CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Andrushchenko VV, Vogel HJ, Prenner EJ (2007) Interactions of tryptophan-rich cathelicidin antimicrobial peptides with model membranes studied by differential scanning calorimetry. Biochim Biophys Acta 1768:2447–2458CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Pate M, Blazyk J (2008) Methods for assessing the structure and function of cationic antimicrobial peptides. In: Champney WS (ed) New antibiotics targets. Humana Press, Totowa, NJ, pp 155–173CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Lakowicz JR (2006) Protein fluorescence. In: Lakowicz JR (ed) Principles of fluorescence spectroscopy. Springer, New York, NY, pp 529–575CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Lakowicz JR (2006) Quenching of fluorescence. In: Lakowicz JR (ed) Principles of fluorescence spectroscopy. Springer, New York, NY, pp 277–330CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Eftink MR, Ghiron CA (1981) Fluorescence quenching studies with proteins. Anal Biochem 114:199–227CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Shashidhara KS, Gaikwad SM (2007) Fluorescence quenching and time-resolved fluorescence studies of alpha-mannosidase from Aspergillus fischeri (NCIM 508). J Fluoresc 17:599–605CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Hristova K, Selsted ME, White SH (1997) Critical role of lipid composition in membrane permeabilization by rabbit neutrophil defensins. J Biol Chem 272:24224–24233CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Wimley WC, Selsted ME, White SH (1994) Interactions between human defensins and lipid bilayers: evidence for formation of multimeric pores. Protein Sci 3:1362–1373CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Stella L, Mazzuca C, Venanzi M et al (2004) Aggregation and water-membrane partition as major determinants of the activity of the antibiotic peptide trichogin GA IV. Biophys J 86:936–945CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Ambroggio EE, Separovic F, Bowie JH et al (2005) Direct visualization of membrane leakage induced by the antibiotic peptides: maculatin, citropin, and aurein. Biophys J 89:1874–1881CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Belokoneva OS, Satake H, Mal’tseva EL et al (2004) Pore formation of phospholipid membranes by the action of two hemolytic arachnid peptides of different size. Biochim Biophys Acta 1664:182–188CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Lehrer RI, Barton A, Ganz T (1988) Concurrent assessment of inner and outer membrane permeabilization and bacteriolysis in E. coli by multiple-wavelength spectrophotometry. J Immunol Methods 108:153–158CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Chongsiriwatana NP, Barron AE (2010) Comparing bacterial membrane interactions of antimicrobial peptides. In: Giuliani A, Rinaldi AC (eds) Antimicrobial peptides methods and protocols. Humana Press, Totowa, NJ, pp 171–182CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Epand RF, Pollard JE, Wright JO et al (2010) Depolarization, bacterial membrane composition, and the antimicrobial action of ceragenins. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 54:3708–3713CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Eriksson M, Nielsen PE, Good L (2002) Cell permeabilization and uptake of antisense peptide-peptide nucleic acid (PNA) into Escherichia coli. J Biol Chem 277:7144–7147CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Kaback HR, Sahin-tóth M, Weinglass AB (2001) The kamikaze approach to membrane transport. Nat Rev Mol Cell Biol 2:610–620CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Artimo P, Jonnalagedda M, Arnold K et al (2012) ExPASy: SIB bioinformatics resource portal. Nucleic Acids Res 40:W597–W603CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Avanti Polar Lipids Inc. (2015) Preparation of liposomesGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Mayer LD, Hope MJ, Cullis PR (1986) Vesicles of variable sizes produced by a rapid extrusion procedure. Biochim Biophys Acta 858:161–168CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Ames BN, Neufeld EF, Ginsberg V (1966) Assay of inorganic phosphate, total phosphate and phosphatases. Methods Enzymol 8:115–118CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Lehrer R, Barton A, Daher KA et al (1989) Interaction of human defensins with Escherichia coli. Mechanism of bactericidal activity. J Clin Invest 84:553–561CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Andrushchenko VV, Vogel HJ, Prenner EJ (2007) Optimization of the hydrochloric acid concentration used for trifluoroacetate removal from synthetic peptides. J Pept Sci 13:37–43CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    De Kroon AIPM, Soekarjo MW, De Gier J et al (1990) The role of charge and hydrophobicity in peptide-lipid interaction: a comparative study based on tryptophan fluorescence measurements combined with the use of aqueous and hydrophobic quenchers. Biochemistry 29:8229–8240CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media LLC 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Biochemistry Research Group, Department of Biological SciencesUniversity of CalgaryCalgaryCanada

Personalised recommendations