Originally published In Press as doi:10.1074/jbc.M103269200 on August 10, 2001
J. Biol. Chem., Vol. 276, Issue 42, 38457-38463, October 19, 2001
Effects of the Membrane Dipole Potential on the
Interaction of Saquinavir with Phospholipid Membranes and Plasma
Membrane Receptors of Caco-2 Cells*
Tanong
Asawakarn,
Josep
Cladera
, and
Paul
O'Shea
From the School of Biomedical Sciences, University of Nottingham,
Nottingham NG 7 2UH, United Kingdom
Received for publication, April 12, 2001, and in revised form, July 11, 2001
 |
ABSTRACT |
The combined use of the membrane surface
potential fluorescent sensor fluorescein phosphatidylethanolamine
(FPE) and the membrane dipole potential fluorescent sensor di-8-ANEPPS
to characterize the interaction of molecules with model and cellular
membranes and to asses the influence of the dipole potential on the
interaction is reported. The study of the human immunodeficiency virus
protease inhibitor saquinavir with Caco-2 cells and phospholipid
membranes reveals that the compound interacts with the lipidic bilayer
of model membranes with a simple hyperbolic binding profile but with Caco-2 cells in a cooperative way involving membrane receptors. Additional studies indicated that colchicine acts as a competitor ligand to saquinavir and suggests, in agreement with other reports, that the identity of the saquinavir "receptor" could be
P-glycoprotein or the multiple drug resistance-associated protein. The
modification of the magnitude of the membrane dipole potential using
compounds such as cholesterol, phloretin, and 6-ketocholestanol
influences the binding capacity of saquinavir. Furthermore, removal of
cholesterol from the cell membrane using methyl-
-cyclodextrin
significantly decreases the binding capacity of saquinavir. Because
removal of cholesterol from the cell membrane has been reported to
disrupt membrane domains known as "rafts," our observations imply
that the membrane dipole potential plays an important role as a
modulator of molecule-membrane interactions in these membrane
structures. Such a role is suggested to contribute to the altered
behavior of receptor-mediated signaling systems in membrane rafts.
 |
INTRODUCTION |
The interactions between many types of differing molecules and
biological membranes underlie much of the cell biology, physiology, and
pathology. During the course of such interactions a number of physical
factors play important roles and may be used to monitor such
interactions. Three of the most influential parameters involve the
different membrane potentials that have quite separate identities and
origins but appear to be a feature of biological membranes (1). The
membrane potentials include the transmembrane potential, resulting from
a charge gradient across the membrane, the surface potential, arising
from the net excess charge present at the membrane surface, and the
membrane dipole potential, which has its origin in the molecular
dipoles located on the membrane lipid molecules (1, 7, 41).
The involvement of the transmembrane and surface potentials in many
biological processes is fairly well established (2); the role of the
membrane dipole potential, however, has only very recently become
apparent. Recent studies implicate the dipole potential in the
interactions of a number of different molecular species with membranes,
such as gramicidin (3, 4), phospholipase A (5), signal sequences (6,
7), and fusion peptides (8).
A number of methods have evolved to monitor the interaction of
molecules with membranes, one such method introduced by our laboratory
exploits the variations of the magnitude of the membrane surface
potential resulting from the attachment of charged molecules to the
membrane (1). This technique makes use of indicators (usually
fluorescent) that are located precisely at the membrane-solution interface and respond to the magnitude of the membrane surface potential. One particularly useful indicator, fluorescein
phosphatidylethanolamine (FPE),1 has been utilized in
our and several other laboratories (e.g. Ref. 9) to report
the interactions of many types of molecules with membranes (1).
In a similar manner, variations of the membrane dipole potential can
also be used to report the membrane binding and insertion of molecules
by recording the fluorescence emission of di-8-ANEPPS-labeled membranes
as a result of the ratio of two excitation wavelengths. The
dual-wavelength ratiometric method complements the FPE-based technique
as it facilitates the measurement of the membrane interactions of
uncharged molecules (7, 8). The monitoring of the membrane dipole
potential as a means to determine intermolecular interactions, however,
has been used mainly with model membrane systems, and apart from a
pilot study published from our laboratory (10), no comprehensive
studies have been reported with living cells. In the present paper,
therefore, we demonstrate the possibility of using both FPE and
di-8-ANEPPS in a complementary way with model membranes and with living
cells with a view to revealing the role of the membrane dipole
potential in affecting important cellular processes. In model membrane
systems the capacity of sterols such as cholesterol and
6-ketocholestanol to affect the magnitude of the membrane dipole
potential is well established (7, 8, 11, 12). On the other hand,
cholesterol is an important component of the membrane lipid domains
known as "rafts" (13, 14), and removal of cholesterol from cellular
membranes following treatment with cyclodextrins or alteration of its
behavior by utilizing filipin, amphotericin, and other compounds has
been widely reported as a useful method to disrupt
"detergent-resistant" membrane microdomains (14-16). Although the
importance of cholesterol for the phase separation processes involved
in the formation of the lipid domains has been well recognized (13, 14,
17, 18), any role of the molecular dipoles associated with sterols and
its influence on the electrostatic properties of membranes for the
organization and function of the raft's components has not yet been
explored in detail.
We report studies on the interactions of a model molecule, saquinavir,
an HIV protease inhibitor with Caco-2 cells, a hybridoma established as
a model system to study the properties of intestinal epithelia. Oral
bioavailability seems to be very limited mainly due to poor solubility,
first pass hepatic metabolism, and poor intestinal permeation (19-21).
Saquinavir and other HIV protease inhibitors have been described as
substrates, inhibitors, or modulators of a number of systems such as
the multidrug resistance MDR1 gene product (P-glycoprotein) and the
multidrug resistance-associated protein (22-28). The lipidic
composition of the membrane has been reported to be important for the
activity of P-glycoprotein, particularly the sterol content (29). The
transporter has also been suggested to be associated with rafts and
"caveolae" (30-32), structures especially rich in cholesterol and sphingolipids.
In the present paper, we present evidence supporting the possibility
that saquinavir interacts with a membrane receptor and the fact that
such interaction is greatly influenced by the magnitude of the membrane
dipole potential. Removal of cholesterol with
-cyclodextrin leads to
a decrease in the magnitude of the dipole potential and a reduced
binding of saquinavir to the membrane. These results suggest a role for
the dipole potential in the regulation of the interaction of molecules
with membranes.
 |
MATERIALS AND METHODS |
Egg phosphatidylethanolamine (PE) and egg phosphatidylcholine
(PC) were purchased from Lipid Products. A pressure extruder bomb for
model membrane preparation was obtained from Lipex BM Inc., Vancouver,
Canada. Polycarbonate filters (100-nm pore size) were purchased from
Nucleopore Filtration Products (Pleasonton, CA). 6-Ketocholestanol (KC)
and phloretin were purchased from Sigma. FPE was synthesized as
previously described according to Wall et al. (33).
Di-8-ANEPPS was purchased from Molecular Probes (Leiden, The
Netherlands). Saquinavir was purchased from Roche Molecular
Biochemicals. Dulbecco's modified Eagle's medium, fetal bovine serum,
glutamine, non-essential amino acid, penicillin-streptomycin, and HEPES
were purchased from Life Technologies, Inc. Trypsin and
Me2SO were purchased from Sigma. EDTA was purchased from
Fisons Scientific Equipment. Staphylococcus aureus membrane
vesicles were kind gifts of Barry Middleton and Prof. Paul Williams.
Preparation of Large Unilamellar Phospholipid Vesicles
(PLVs)--
PC and phosphatidylserine (PS) dissolved in chloroform
were mixed in a round bottom flask and dried under a stream of
oxygen-free argon gas by rotary evaporation until a thin film was
formed. The lipid film was rehydrated with 1 ml of 280 mM
sucrose, 10 mM Tris, pH 7.4 (sucrose buffer). The resulting
multilamellar solution was frozen and thawed 5 times and finally
extruded 10 times through 25-mm diameter polycarbonate filters with
pores 100 nm in diameter. This resulted in a monodisperse, unilamellar suspension of phospholipid vesicles (34).
Labeling of PLVs and S. aureus Vesicles with FPE and
di-8-ANEPPS--
Phospholipids were labeled exclusively in the outer
bilayer leaflet with FPE as described in Cladera and O'Shea (1).
Briefly, the unilamellar vesicles were incubated with FPE dissolved in ethanol (never more than 0.1% of the total aqueous volume) at 37 °C
for 1 h in the dark. Any remaining unincorporated FPE was removed
by gel filtration on a PD10 Sephadex column equilibrated with the
appropriate buffer. Such a procedure leads to the incorporation of
30-50% of the externally added FPE to the preformed membrane vesicle.
Furthermore, there was no observed transmembrane flipping of the FPE,
at least over time scales of 1 week. The FPE-liposomes were stored at
4 °C until use.
PLVs and S. aureus vesicles were labeled with di-8-ANEPPS by
adding 1 µM dye (from a stock solution in ethanol) in 280 mM sucrose, 10 mM Tris, pH 7.4.
Cell Culture--
Caco-2 cells were cultured in Dulbecco's
modified Eagle's medium supplemented with 10% FBS (heat-activated),
1% glutamine, 1% non-essential amino acids, 2%
penicillin-streptomycin, and 2% HEPES. Cells were grown in
25-cm3 tissue culture flasks, incubated at 37 °C in a
humidified atmosphere of 5% CO2,95% air. The culture
medium was changed every 2 days, and the semiconfluence
monolayers were subcultured with trypsin-EDTA (0.02% trypsin, 10 mM EDTA).
Labeling of Caco-2 Cells with FPE and Di-8-ANEPPS--
Caco-2
cells were trypsinized with trypsin-EDTA and counted with the
hemocytometer following the trypan blue exclusion technique to assess
cell viability. Caco-2 cells were suspended in the sucrose-based medium
(sucrose buffer) (10 mM Tris, 280 mM sucrose,
pH 7.4). A volume of FPE in chloroform/methanol at a ratio of 10 µg
of FPE:2 × 106 cells was placed in a tube, and the
organic solvent evaporated under a steam of argon gas followed by
re-solvation with 15 µl of ethanol. The cell suspension was then
added to the FPE suspension, and the mixture was gently agitated before
incubation in the dark for 45-60 min at 37 °C. The unincorporated
FPE was removed by centrifugation at 2500 × g for 5 min in sucrose buffer.
Cells were labeled with di-8-ANEPPs as follows: 1 µM dye
was added into a suspension containing 40,000 cells/ml. The mixture was
incubated for 21/2 h at 36 °C. After this period very small increments in the intensity of the excitation spectra could still be
detected as a consequence of the dye incorporating into the membrane.
This variation however did not lead to any spectral shift that could
compromise the difference spectra of the kind originating from the
peptide after normalization (see Fig. 3).
Caco-2 cells (approximately 40,000 cells/ml) were treated with 15 µM KC or 15 µM phloretin for 1 h after
they were labeled with di-8-ANEPPS. After this time no additional
spectral shifts due to the variation of the dipole potential were detected.
Removal of Cholesterol from Caco-2 Cells--
Caco-2 cells in
culture were treated overnight with 30 mM
methyl-
-cyclodextrin, the cholesterol chelator (35). After this period methyl-
-cyclodextrin was washed by centrifugation, and the
cells were labeled with di-8-ANEPPS as described above.
Fluorescence Measurements--
Fluorescence time courses were
obtained by adding the desired amount of compound to 2-ml lipid
suspensions (200 µM lipid or 40,000 cells/ml) on a
SLM-AMINCO series 2 spectrofluorometer. For FPE experiments excitation
and emission wavelengths were set at 490 and 518 nm, respectively.
Di-8-ANEPPS excitation spectra were obtained by excitation at
the indicated wavelengths while the emission intensity was measured at
580 nm (7, 11). Dual-wavelength recordings with the di-8-ANEPPS dye
were obtained by exciting the samples at two different wavelengths (450 and 520 nm) and measuring their emission intensity ratio,
R(450/520), at 580 nm (7, 11). Any contribution
of light-scattering to the fluorescence signals was corrected from
identical recordings with unlabeled membranes. The cumulative
amplitudes of the FPE or di-8-ANEPPS fluorescence signals were plotted
against the saquinavir concentration and fitted to standard binding
models (36) according to the following equations.
|
(Eq. 1)
|
|
(Eq. 2)
|
where Kd is the affinity of the peptide
for the membrane in concentration units and n is the Hill coefficient.
 |
RESULTS |
The Interaction of Saquinavir and Calcium Ions with Phospholipid
Membranes--
The interaction of positively charged molecules such as
calcium ions and polylysine with model PLVs promotes an increase in the
fluorescence of FPE as illustrated in the inset of Fig.
1. This property is only manifest when
FPE is incorporated into the membrane (1). In a similar manner, serial
additions of saquinavir also result in an increase of the fluorescence
intensity caused by the interaction of the positively charged form of
saquinavir with the membrane. At pH 7.4, ~25% of the overall
population of saquinavir molecules are positively charged
(pK 6.89). A complete titration of the phospholipid
membranes with saquinavir is illustrated in the lower inset
of Fig. 1. The cumulative signal changes as a result of this titration
(corrected for any contribution from the solvent addition) were
analyzed according to a number of binding models (main figure). The
simplest such model found to be an adequate description of the
hyperbolic binding profile is given by Equation 1 and yields a
dissociation constant of 50 µM.

View larger version (16K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
|
Fig. 1.
Fluorescence variation of FPE-labeled PLVs as
a function of saquinavir concentration. The binding profile was
derived from the time course fluorescence variations caused by addition
of saquinavir to FPE-PLVs (lower inset); the
arrows indicate successive additions of saquinavir (2.5, 5, 5, 12.5, 12.5, 25, and 25 µM). The experimental data were
fitted to Equation 1 (solid line). The upper
inset illustrates the fluorescence variation caused by the
addition of 10 mM CaCl2. The lipid
concentration was 200 µM. Temperature was 37 °C.
|
|
The Interaction of Saquinavir, Ca2+, and Polylysine
with FPE-labeled Caco-2 Cells--
Fig.
2 shows the interactions of polylysine,
Ca2+, and saquinavir with FPE-labeled Caco-2 cells. Both
Ca2+ and polylysine additions resulted in an increase of
the fluorescence intensity consistent with the mode of operation of FPE
(1). In contrast to the results obtained with PLVs, shown in Fig. 1, however, saquinavir addition was not found to affect the fluorescence intensity of the FPE-labeled Caco-2 cells. The simplest interpretation for this observation is that little of the positively charged saquinavir becomes bound to the Caco-2 cells. In the event that the
uncharged fraction of saquinavir becomes bound to the membrane, this
would lead to no signal changes and remain, therefore, unobserved with
the FPE measurement system. This possibility is addressed experimentally with another indicator system below.

View larger version (14K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
|
Fig. 2.
Time course of the fluorescence variation of
FPE-labeled Caco-2 cells upon addition of 10 mM
CaCl2, 200 nM polylysine, and
25 µM saquinavir. Cell
concentration was 2 × 105/ml. Other conditions were
as in Fig. 1.
|
|
The Interaction of Saquinavir with Caco-2 Cells Monitored with
Di-8-ANEPPS; the Role of the Membrane Dipole Potential in
Intermolecular Membrane Interactions--
The magnitude of the
membrane dipole potential may be monitored using the fluorescent
indicator di-8-ANEPPS (7, 11). The response of di-8-ANEPPS to
variations of the dipole potential, however, involves a spectral shift
rather than, as in the case of FPE, a simple intensity change. An
example of the measurement of such a spectral shift for both Caco-2
cells and phospholipid membranes labeled with di-8-ANEPPS is
illustrated in Fig. 3A. The
fluorescence difference spectra were obtained respectively by
subtracting the excitation spectra of phospholipid membranes and Caco-2
cells before and after their exposure to saquinavir. For the difference
spectra to reflect only the spectral shift, the areas of the excitation
spectra were normalized to the same integrated intensity before
subtraction (7, 37). In both cases, the difference spectra show a
minimum below 450 nm and a maximum around 520 nm. These features
coincide with those of difference spectra obtained after treatment of
membranes with compounds known to decrease the dipole potential (7, 11 and see Fig. 5B). The addition of saquinavir to the model
and cellular membranes, therefore, appears to promote a decrease in
the magnitude of the dipole potential.

View larger version (18K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
|
Fig. 3.
A, di-8-ANEPPS-labeled PLVs and Caco-2
cell excitation difference spectra. The spectra were obtained by
subtracting the excitation spectra before the addition of saquinavir
from the excitation spectra after the addition of saquinavir. Before
subtraction the spectra were normalized to the integrated areas so that
the difference spectra would reflect only spectral shifts.
B, time course variation of the fluorescence ratio
R(450/520) measured with the dual-wavelength
method. Each arrow indicates the addition of 12.5 µM saquinavir. Dye concentration was 1 µM.
Other conditions were as in Figs. 1 and 2.
|
|
The variation of the dipole potential as a function of time can also be
monitored using a double wavelength ratiometric method that involves
the measurement of the emission ratio at two different excitation
wavelengths, R(450/520). This parameter reflects
the spectral shift caused by the variation of the dipole potential. Fig. 3B shows that the addition of saquinavir to both PLVs
and Caco-2 cells causes, as expected from the observation of the
difference spectra, a decrease of the ratio
R(450/520).
The Membrane Affinity of Saquinavir as Revealed by Di-8-ANEPPS
Fluorescence--
The changes of the value of
R(450/520) following the serial addition of
saquinavir to each membrane system may be plotted cumulatively as
illustrated in Fig. 4. The experimental
data were analyzed according to a number of binding models
(e.g. as in Fig. 1). The interaction of saquinavir with the
phospholipid membranes fits a hyperbolic single binding site model and
yields a dissociation constant close to 50 µM. The
interaction of saquinavir with the Caco-2 cells, however, was best
described by a sigmoidal binding profile (see Equation 2) indicating
that there are elements of cooperativity in the binding process (Hill
coefficient n = 3 from Equation 2). The resultant
binding profiles of each membrane system are plotted together in Fig.
4, in which the total extents of the signal change have been normalized
to 100% on the ordinate scale for clarity.

View larger version (15K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
|
Fig. 4.
Fluorescence change of PLVs and Caco-2 cells
labeled with di-8-ANEPPS as a function of saquinavir
concentration. Experimental conditions were as in Fig. 3. Fitting
of the experimental points to Equation 1 (PLVs) and Equation 2 (Caco-2
cells) is shown as solid lines.
|
|
Modulation of the Caco-2 Cell Membrane Dipole Potential by
6-Ketocholestanol and Phloretin; Comparison with Phospholipid Membrane
Systems--
The magnitude of the dipole potential, a property of
membranes originating from the molecular dipoles present on the lipid molecules, depends on the composition of the lipid bilayer, as shown in
Fig. 5A for a range of model
membrane compositions. It is clear from the measurement of
R(450/520) that compounds such as cholesterol,
KC, and phloretin may be used to increase or decrease, respectively,
the magnitude of the dipole potential in membranes. Fig. 5B
shows the fluorescence difference spectrum obtained by subtracting the
normalized fluorescence profiles of untreated Caco-2 cell membranes,
i.e. cells with a "normal" dipole potential, from cells
treated with 15 µM KC. This difference spectrum, with a
minimum at 520 nm and maximum at 450 nm, is blue-shifted (equivalent to
a increase in the ratio R(450/520)) following
treatment with KC. The result of treating Caco-2 cells with phloretin
produces a red-shifted difference spectrum (equivalent to a decrease of R(450/520)). These compounds, therefore, may be
used with cells to alter the poise of the dipole potential in the same
way as with model membrane systems (7, 11).

View larger version (24K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
|
Fig. 5.
A, dependence of the magnitude of the
dipole potential, expressed as the fluorescence ratio
R(460/520), on membrane composition.
PC-KC, 85 mol% PC:15 mol% KC; PC-CHOL, 70 mol%
PC:30 mol% cholesterol; PC-PE-KC, 35 mol% PC:50 mol%
PE:15 mol% KC; PC, 100 mol% PC; PC-PE, 50 mol%
PC:50 mol% PE; PC-PE-PHL, 35 mol% PC:50 mol% PE:15 mol%
phloretin; PC-PE-GD, 25 mol% PC:50 mol% PE:25 mol%
ganglioside; PC-PHL, 85 mol% PC:15 mol%. B,
di-8-ANEPPS-labeled Caco-2 cell fluorescence difference spectra.
Left panel, excitation spectrum of cells treated with 15 µM phloretin minus excitation spectrum of untreated
cells. Right panel, excitation spectrum of cells treated
with 15 µM KC minus excitation spectrum of untreated
cells. Subtraction procedure and other conditions were as in Fig.
3.
|
|
Modulation of the Caco-2 Cell Membrane Dipole Potential by
6-Ketocholestanol and Phloretin; Effects on the Interactions of
Saquinavir--
The interaction of saquinavir with the Caco-2 cell
membrane affects the magnitude of the membrane dipole potential as
indicated by the difference spectrum and the decrease of
R(450/520) shown in Fig. 3. Fig.
6A illustrates the time
evolution of R(450/520) upon saquinavir addition
to Caco-2 cell membranes treated with KC and phloretin as compared with
untreated membranes. It is noteworthy that the initial level of the
fluorescence ratio R(450/520) is different for
each of the membrane systems in accordance with the previous section
(Fig. 5A).

View larger version (16K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
|
Fig. 6.
A, effect of phloretin and KC on the
fluorescence variation of di-8-ANEPPS-labeled Caco-2 cells upon
saquinavir addition (12.5 µM). B, variation of the ratio
R(450/520) as a function of saquinavir
concentration. a, Caco-2 cells supplemented with 15 µM KC; b, Caco-2 cells; c, Caco-2
cells supplemented with 15 µM phloretin. The initial
value of R(450/520) has been normalized to 0. Fitting of the data to Equation 2 is shown as a solid
line.
|
|
The extent of the change following challenge with saquinavir is
different in each of the membrane systems utilized, as illustrated in
Fig. 6A, with respect to the untreated Caco-2 cells. The
amplitude of the signal decrease is larger for Caco-2 cells treated
with KC and smaller for cells treated with phloretin.
Fig. 6B illustrates the comparison between the binding
profiles of saquinavir to untreated cells and cells treated with KC and
phloretin. Each binding process, following correction for any
contribution from Me2SO, was analyzed and found to be best described as a sigmoidal profile indicating a level of cooperativity. The index of cooperativity in each case (i.e. the Hill
coefficient) was found to be close to 3. Compared with untreated
membranes, the magnitude of the binding capacity, however, was
dramatically increased in membranes treated with KC and marginally
decreased in membranes treated with phloretin.
Effect of 6-Ketocholestanol, Cholesterol, and Phloretin on the
Binding of Saquinavir to PLVs--
The effect of phloretin and KC
together with the observed effects of cholesterol on the binding of
saquinavir to PLVs is illustrated in Fig.
7. As was the case with Caco-2 cells, the
modification of the dipole potential influences the saquinavir binding
capacity. Cholesterol is shown to act in a manner similar to KC but to
a much lesser extent. The data in this case, however, were best fitted
to a hyperbolic binding profile (Equation 1) with no indications of
cooperative interactions.

View larger version (15K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
|
Fig. 7.
Effect of phloretin, KC, and cholesterol on
the binding of saquinavir to di-8-ANEPPS-labeled PLVs. The
variation of the ratio R(450/520) as a function
of saquinavir concentration is presented: PLVs supplemented with 15 mol% KC (downward triangles), PLVs (full
circles), PLVs supplemented with 20 mol% cholesterol
(upward triangles), PLVs supplemented with 15 mol%
phloretin (squares). The initial value of
R(450/520) has been normalized to 0. Fitting of
the data to Equation 1 is shown as a solid line.
|
|
Effect of Partially Removing Cholesterol from the Caco-2 Cells on
the Membrane Binding of Saquinavir--
It has been demonstrated above
that cholesterol may be utilized in a similar manner as KC to increase
the membrane dipole potential and that its presence in the model
lipidic bilayers affects the binding capacity of saquinavir. On this
basis it was considered worthwhile to determine the effect that the
removal of cholesterol from the native Caco-2 cells using
methyl-
-cyclodextrin (14-16, 35) had on the membrane interactions
of saquinavir. Treatment of the cells with methyl-
-cyclodextrin is
known to remove 40-50% of the cholesterol present in the cell
membrane (16). Fig. 8 illustrates how the
magnitude of the membrane dipole potential is smaller for cells that
have been treated with the methyl-
-cyclodextrin (lower value of the
initial R parameter). This is consistent with a significant
reduction in the amount of cholesterol in the plasma membrane since the
presence of cholesterol leads to an increase in the magnitude of the
dipole potential (11). The inset in the figure, in which the
initial values of R(450/520) have been normalized to 0 to facilitate the comparison of the fluorescence changes, shows that the binding capacity (maximal fluorescence change)
is reduced when saquinavir binds to cells treated with methyl-
-cyclodextrin. The affinity of the compound for the membrane and the sigmoidal binding profile, however, remain the same.

View larger version (19K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
|
Fig. 8.
Variation of the fluorescence ratio
R(450/520) as a function of saquinavir
concentration for di-8-ANEPPS-labeled Caco-2 cells (downward
triangles) and di-8-ANEPPS-labeled Caco-2 cells pretreated
with methyl- -cyclodextrin to remove
cholesterol from the cell membrane (upward
triangles). The inset represents both
profiles after normalizing the initial value of
R(450/520) to 0 to compare the difference in the
amplitude of the fluorescence variation at saturating saquinavir
concentrations. Data shown in the inset have been fitted to
Equation 2 (solid lines).
|
|
Saquinavir Binding to S. aureus Membrane Vesicles and Effect of
Colchicine on the Binding to Caco-2 Cells--
Finally, we considered
the possibility of measuring the interaction of saquinavir with
membranes with no sterols while still representing a membrane system
abundant in nature that possesses the potential to bind molecules such
as saquinavir. With this in mind S. aureus membranes were
utilized because they are known to possess drug resistance systems
within their cell membrane, a system homologous to the eucaryotic
mutidrug resistance and to the LmrA of Lactobacillus lacti
(38, 39). S. aureus membranes also do not contain sterols.
The binding of saquinavir to S. aureus membrane vesicles was
found to exhibit a sigmoidal profile, very similar to that measured for
Caco-2 cells, as shown in Fig. 9. This
observation and the results presented above clearly show that
cooperativity in the binding of saquinavir does not depend on the
presence of cholesterol or the magnitude of the dipole potential but
rather on the protein content of the membranes. This is compelling
evidence that strongly suggests the involvement of a membrane receptor.
The identity of such a membrane receptor is likely to be the
P-glycoprotein as there is good evidence that saquinavir interacts with
this membrane protein (22-28). This possibility is further
strengthened by observations that competitive inhibition of saquinavir
binding is observed with colchicine, an established Pgp substrate known
to affect the conformation of Pgp in the concentration range between 1 and 10 mM. Fig. 10
indicates that the presence of colchicine at levels known to inhibit
partially the action of Pgp significantly reduces the interaction of
saquinavir with Caco-2 cells. This implies that saquinavir interacts
with the plasma membrane Pgp and underlies the sigmoidal nature of the cell binding profile indicated in Fig. 4.

View larger version (11K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
|
Fig. 9.
Fluorescence change of S. aureus
membrane vesicles labeled with di-8-ANEPPS as a function of
saquinavir concentration. Experimental conditions were as in Fig.
3. Fitting of the experimental points to Equation 2 is shown as a
solid line.
|
|

View larger version (15K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
|
Fig. 10.
Time course of the fluorescence variations
of di-8-ANEPPS-labeled Caco-2 cells in the absence and presence of 10 mM colchicine in the medium. Experimental conditions
were as in Fig. 3.
|
|
 |
DISCUSSION |
The fluorescent indicators FPE and di-8-ANEPPS have been used
previously in the study of the relationship between membrane potentials
and the interaction of molecules with biological membranes. In the case
of FPE, the labeling of cell membranes has been characterized for
several cellular systems (1); studies involving di-8-ANEPPS, however,
have been mostly undertaken using model membrane systems (7, 8, 10, 11,
37, 40, 41). The present study outlines the use of monitoring the
dipole potential with the ratio-fluorescence of di-8-ANEPPS in
combination with FPE to report the membrane electrostatic surface
potential changes, for the complete interrogation of the interactions
between macromolecules and cellular membranes. The results clearly
emphasize the significance of the membrane dipole potential in the
interaction of the HIV1-protease inhibitor saquinavir with the plasma
membrane of Caco-2 cells.
Fluorescence measurements with FPE-labeled and di-8-ANEPPS-labeled
phospholipid model membranes (PLVs) and Caco-2 cells show that
saquinavir interacts with both membrane systems (Figs. 1 and 4). The
interaction of saquinavir with FPE-labeled cells, however, does not
cause any fluorescence variation, whereas it clearly increases the
fluorescence of FPE-labeled PLVs (Figs. 1 and 2). On the other hand,
the FPE-labeled cells are sensitive to the interactions of other
positively charged compounds known to have a high affinity for the
membrane, such as calcium ions and polylysine (Fig. 2). This indicates
that the dye is correctly incorporated into the cellular membrane with
the fluorophore located precisely at the membrane surface. In fact in
our laboratory such a calcium response is utilized routinely as a
diagnostic for the successful incorporation of the dye into the
membrane (1, 33, 36). To explain the lack of response of FPE-labeled
cells when challenged with saquinavir, as compared with PLVs, however,
it is necessary to take other factors into consideration. In
particular, the amount of phospholipid membrane presented by the Caco-2
cell suspension compared with that presented by the PLV suspension is
very different. This difference between the model membrane and the
cellular systems has recently been described to be important also for
understanding the HIV gp41 fusion peptide interaction with biological
membranes (10). Following the approximation described in this work it
may be calculated that the respective phospholipid surface area is at
least 104 smaller in the Caco-2 cell experimental system.
Thus, positively charged saquinavir (representing approximately
25% of the total saquinavir population), which clearly interacts with
model membranes, may also interact with the lipidic part of the Caco-2
cell membrane. However because this represents such a small
contribution to the fluorescence it remains undetectable under such conditions.
Identical studies undertaken with di-8-ANEPPS shown in Fig. 3, however,
indicate that saquinavir interacts with the plasma membrane of Caco-2
cells, as such interaction leads to a decrease of the membrane dipole
potential, which can be used to obtain the binding profile. As
di-8-ANEPPS does not discriminate between the uncharged and charged
portions of the saquinavir population, additional information needs to
be brought to bear if statements are to be made on the identity of the
molecular species that is interacting with the membrane. From our
previous conclusions that very little of the charged population of
saquinavir binds to the Caco-2 cells and given that the sensitivity of
the FPE measurement system is much greater than that of the
di-8-ANEPPS, it seems most likely that the uncharged components of the
saquinavir population become bound to the Caco-2 cells. In other words
the di-8-ANEPPS signal changes reside in the binding of saquinavir
molecules that are uncharged as otherwise binding of charged saquinavir
would be observed by the (more sensitive) FPE-labeled Caco-2 cells, electrostatic surface potential measurement system.
A binding model incorporating a single population of binding sites
describes satisfactorily the binding to PLVs (Fig. 4), whereas in the
case of Caco-2 cells, a sigmoid profile with a Hill coefficient close
to 3 offers the best fit of the experimental data. Binding of
saquinavir to the phospholipid components of the cell membrane would be
anticipated to produce a hyperbolic binding profile as in the case of
phospholipid model membranes. Such a difference in the shape of the
binding profiles between the different membranes is a strong indication
of the possibility that the binding of saquinavir to Caco-2 cells has
its origins in a receptor-mediated process rather than solely
phospholipid membrane binding. In line with this, saquinavir like other
HIV-1 protease inhibitors is known to be a substrate of the MDR1
multidrug transporter and other drug resistance systems such as the
multidrug resistance-associated protein (19, 22-28).
The sigmoidal nature of the binding profiles does not appear to depend
on the cholesterol content of the lipidic bilayer or on the presence of
compounds such as phloretin or KC, which affect the magnitude of the
dipole potential. The interaction of saquinavir with PLVs always yields
hyperbolic binding profiles independently of the membrane composition
(Fig. 7), whereas binding to cell or bacterial membranes exhibits
sigmoidal profiles (Figs. 6B and 9) despite the fact that
bacterial membranes are known to contain no sterols. The membranes of
S. aureus, however, are known to possess membrane proteins
involved in drug resistance and homologs of the eucaryotic human MDR1
and the LmrA of L. lacti (38, 39). Cooperativity in the
binding of saquinavir, therefore, appears to rely on the presence of
membrane proteins and indicates that a membrane receptor is involved in
the binding process.
On the other hand, it follows from the present results that the initial
magnitude of the membrane dipole potential clearly influences the
binding of saquinavir (i.e. from the total amplitude of the
binding plots). As we demonstrate in Fig. 5A, the magnitude of the dipole potential is highly dependent on the lipid composition of
the membrane. The use of compounds such as cholesterol, KC, or
phloretin to poise the dipole potential of either model or cell
membranes shows that the higher its initial magnitude (i.e. more positive toward the interior of the bilayer (7, 41)) the higher
the saquinavir binding capacity, without major changes in the affinity
of the compound for the membrane being observed (Figs. 6, 7, and
8).
It is worth emphasizing the fact that cholesterol has a similar but
lesser effect on the membrane dipole potential as KC as well as to the
binding capacity of saquinavir for both model and cell membranes.
Cholesterol is also known to promote phase separation in lipid
bilayers, which leads to the formation of microdomain structures
"afloat" within the fluid phospholipid bilayer (13) known as rafts.
Removal of cholesterol by treatment of cells with cyclodextrins has
been extensively reported to disrupt membrane rafts (14-16). Our
results, therefore, are consistent with a model in which the binding
capacity of saquinavir is enhanced when the receptor is located in
rafts as a consequence of the increased magnitude of the dipole
potential in these cholesterol-rich patches compared with that in the
fluid phase of the bilayer. The results reported here strongly suggest
a possible role of the membrane dipole potential in the interaction of
molecules with rafts and the important biological processes associated
with them (13, 14).
Finally, the binding competition experiments (Fig. 10), although
preliminary, point toward P-glycoprotein as the identity of the
saquinavir membrane receptor. Colchicine is a rather hydrophilic Pgp
substrate. Druley et al. (42) reported that colchicine can modify the conformation of Pgp in the concentration range between 1 and
10 mM. This is consistent with the level of colchicine used to interfere with the binding of saquinavir to Caco-2 cells in the
present study.
The indications in the present paper that the membrane dipole potential
may influence the interaction of saquinavir with model and cell
membranes shed new light on how some physical properties of membranes
may be utilized to control cellular phenomena. Molecular dipoles within
membranes may underlie the behavior of protein systems within membrane
microdomains. On this basis, the strategy employed in the present paper
seems appropriate for future experiments to study the interaction of a
number of signal molecules with "raft-associated" receptor systems.
In our laboratory this is being pursued by applying imaging techniques
to the more localized interactions of such molecules with similarly
localized receptors on the cell surface. It also seems possible using
the technologies described above that comparisons between
otherwise similar bacterial and eucaryotic membrane systems can also be addressed.
 |
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS |
We are grateful to the Discovery team at
Roche Pharmaceuticals for helpful discussions and to the anonymous
referees for comments that have strengthened the main themes of this
paper. We are also grateful to Dr. Barry Middleton and Prof. Paul
Williams for providing us with S. aureus membrane vesicles.
 |
FOOTNOTES |
*
The costs of publication of this
article were defrayed in part by the
payment of page charges. The article
must therefore be hereby marked
"advertisement" in
accordance with 18 U.S.C. Section
1734 solely to indicate this fact.
To whom correspondence should be addressed. Fax:
44-115-970-9259; E-mail: josep.cladera@nottingham.ac.uk or
paul.oshea@nottingham.ac.uk.
Published, JBC Papers in Press, August 10, 2001, DOI 10.1074/jbc.M103269200
 |
ABBREVIATIONS |
The abbreviations used are:
FPE, fluorescein
phosphatidylethanolamine;
HIV, human immunodeficiency virus;
PC, phosphatidylcholine;
PS, phosphatidylserine;
KC, ketocholestanol;
PLV, phospholipid vesicles;
Pgp, P-glycoprotein;
di-8-ANEPPS, 1-(3-sulfonatopropyl)-4-[
[2-(di-n-octylamino)-6-naphthyl]vinyl]pyridinium
betaine.
 |
REFERENCES |
| 1.
|
Cladera, J.,
and O'Shea, P.
(2001)
in
Protein-Ligand Interactions
(Harding
, and Chowdery, eds)
, pp. 169-200, Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK
|
| 2.
|
Clementz, T.,
Christiansson, A.,
and Wieslander, A.
(1988)
Physiological Regulation of Membrane Fluidity
, pp. 41-74, Alan R. Liss, Inc., New York
|
| 3.
|
Rokitskaya, T. L.,
Atonenko, Y. N.,
and Kotova, E. A.
(1997)
Biophys. J.
73,
850-854[Abstract/Free Full Text]
|
| 4.
|
Shapovalov, V.,
Kotova, E. A.,
Rokitskaya, T. I.,
and Antonenko, Y. N.
(1999)
Biophys. J.
77,
299-305[Abstract/Free Full Text]
|
| 5.
|
Maggio, B.
(1999)
J. Lipid Res.
40,
930-939[Abstract/Free Full Text]
|
| 6.
|
Voglino, L.,
McIntosh, T. J.,
and Simon, S. A.
(1998)
Biochemistry
37,
12241-12252[CrossRef][Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve]
|
| 7.
|
Cladera, J.,
and O'Shea, P.
(1998)
Biophys. J.
74,
2434-2442[Abstract/Free Full Text]
|
| 8.
|
Cladera, J.,
Martin, I.,
Ruysschaert, J. M.,
and O'Shea, P.
(1999)
J. Biol. Chem.
274,
29951-29959[Abstract/Free Full Text]
|
| 9.
|
Bryson, E. A.,
Rankin, S. E.,
Carey, M.,
Watts, A.,
and Pinheiro, T. J.
(1999)
Biochemistry
38,
9758-9767[CrossRef][Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve]
|
| 10.
|
Cladera, J.,
Martin, I.,
and O'Shea, P.
(2001)
EMBO J.
20,
19-26[CrossRef][Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve]
|
| 11.
|
Gross, E.,
Bedlack, R. S.,
and Loew, L. M.
(1994)
Biophys. J.
67,
208-216[Abstract/Free Full Text]
|
| 12.
|
Clarke, R. J.,
and Kane, D. J.
(1997)
Biochim. Biophys. Acta
1323,
223-239[Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve]
|
| 13.
|
Simons, K.,
and Ikonen, E.
(1997)
Nature
387,
569-572[CrossRef][Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve]
|
| 14.
|
Simons, K.,
and Toomre, D.
(2000)
Nature Rev. Mol. Cell. Biol.
1,
31-39[CrossRef][Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve]
|
| 15.
|
Hansen, G. H.,
Niels-Christiansen, L. L.,
Thorsen, E.,
Immerdal, L.,
and Danielsen, E. M.
(2000)
J. Biol. Chem.
275,
5136-5142[Abstract/Free Full Text]
|
| 16.
|
Luker, G. D.,
Pica, C. M.,
Sampath Kumer, A.,
Covey, D. F.,
and Piwnica-Worms, D.
(2000)
Biochemistry
39,
7651-7661[CrossRef][Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve]
|
| 17.
|
Anderson, R. G. W.
(1998)
Annu. Rev. Biochem.
67,
199-225[CrossRef][Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve]
|
| 18.
|
Brown, D. A.,
and London, E.
(2000)
J. Biol. Chem.
275,
17221-17224[Free Full Text]
|
| 19.
|
Aungst, B. J.
(1999)
Adv. Drug Del. Rev.
39,
105-116[CrossRef][Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve]
|
| 20.
|
Watkins, P. B.
(1997)
Adv. Drug Del. Rev.
27,
161-170[CrossRef][Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve]
|
| 21.
|
Gottesman, M. M.,
Hrycyna, C. A.,
Schoenlein, P. V.,
German, U. A.,
and Pastan, I.
(1995)
Annu. Rev. Genet.
29,
607-649[CrossRef][Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve]
|
| 22.
|
Lee, C. G. L.,
Gottesman, M. M.,
Cardarelli, C. O.,
Ramachandra, M.,
Jeang, K. T.,
Ambudkar, S. V.,
Pastan, I.,
and Dey, S.
(1998)
Biochemistry
37,
3594-3601[CrossRef][Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve]
|
| 23.
|
Gutmann, H.,
Fircker, G.,
Drewe, J.,
Toeroek, M.,
and Miller, D. S.
(1999)
Mol. Pharmacol.
56,
383-389[Abstract/Free Full Text]
|
| 24.
|
Kim, R. B.,
Fromm, M. F.,
Wandel, C.,
Leake, B.,
Wood, A. J.,
Roden, D. M.,
and Wilkinson, G. R.
(1998)
J. Clin. Invest.
101,
289-294[Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve]
|
| 25.
|
Miller, D. S.,
Nobmann, S. N.,
Gutmann, H.,
Teoroek, M.,
Drewe, J.,
and Fricker, G.
(2000)
Mol. Pharmacol.
58,
1357-1367[Abstract/Free Full Text]
|
| 26.
|
Profit,
Eagling, V. A.,
and Back, D. J.
(1999)
AIDS
13,
1623-1627[CrossRef][Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve]
|
| 27.
|
Jones, K.,
Hoggard, P. G.,
Sales, S. D.,
Khoo, S.,
Davey, R.,
and Back, D. J.
(2001)
AIDS
15,
675-681[CrossRef][Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve]
|
| 28.
|
Srinivas, R. V.,
Middlemas, D.,
Flynn, P.,
and Fridland, A.
(1998)
Antimicrob. Agents Chemother.
42,
3157-3162[Abstract/Free Full Text]
|
| 29.
|
Ferte, J.
(2000)
Eur. J. Biochem.
267,
277-294[Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve]
|
| 30.
|
Zegers, M. M. P.,
and Hoekstra, D.
(1998)
Biochem. J.
336,
257-269
|
| 31.
|
Demeule, M.,
Jodoin, J.,
Gingras, D.,
and Beliveau, R.
(2000)
FEBS Lett.
466,
219-224[CrossRef][Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve]
|
| 32.
|
Lavie, Y.,
Fiucci, G.,
Czarny, M.,
and Liscovitch, M.
(1999)
Lipids
34 (suppl.),
S57-S63
|
| 33.
|
Wall, J.,
Golding, C.,
van Veen, M.,
and O'Shea, P.
(1995)
Mol. Membr. Biol.
12,
183-192[Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve]
|
| 34.
|
Mayer, L. D.,
Hope, M. J.,
and Cullis, P. R.
(1986)
Biochim. Biophys. Acta
858,
161-168[Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve]
|
| 35.
|
Kilsdonk, E. P. C.,
Yancey, P.,
Stoudt, G.,
Bangerter, F. W.,
Johnson, W. J.,
Philips, M. C.,
and Rothblat, G. H.
(1995)
J. Biol. Chem.
270,
17250-17256[Abstract/Free Full Text]
|
| 36.
|
Wall, J.,
Ayoub, F.,
and O'Shea, P.
(1995)
J. Cell Sci.
108,
2673-2682[Abstract]
|
| 37.
|
Montana, V.,
Farkas, D. L.,
and Loew, L. M.
(1989)
Biochemistry
28,
4536-4539[CrossRef][Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve]
|
| 38.
|
Putman, M.,
van Veen, H. W.,
and Konings, W. N.
(2000)
Microbiol. Mol. Biol. Rev.
64,
672-693[Abstract/Free Full Text]
|
| 39.
|
van Veen, H. W.,
and Konings, W. N.
(1998)
Biochim. Biophys. Acta
1365,
31-36[Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve]
|
| 40.
|
Loew, L. M.,
Scully, S.,
Simpson, L.,
and Waggoner, A. S.
(1979)
Nature
281,
497-499[CrossRef][Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve]
|
| 41.
|
Brockman, H.
(1994)
Chem. Phys. Lipids
73,
57-59[CrossRef][Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve]
|
| 42.
|
Druley, T. E.,
Stein, W. D.,
Ruth, A.,
and Roninson, I. B.
(2001)
Biochemistry
40,
4323-4331[CrossRef][Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve]
|
Copyright © 2001 by The American Society for Biochemistry and Molecular Biology, Inc.

CiteULike
Complore
Connotea
Del.icio.us
Digg
Reddit
Technorati What's this?
This article has been cited by other articles:

|
 |

|
 |
 
J. R. Simard, F. Kamp, and J. A. Hamilton
Measuring the Adsorption of Fatty Acids to Phospholipid Vesicles by Multiple Fluorescence Probes
Biophys. J.,
June 1, 2008;
94(11):
4493 - 4503.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
 |
|

|
 |

|
 |
 
T. Starke-Peterkovic, N. Turner, M. F. Vitha, M. P. Waller, D. E. Hibbs, and R. J. Clarke
Cholesterol Effect on the Dipole Potential of Lipid Membranes
Biophys. J.,
June 1, 2006;
90(11):
4060 - 4070.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
 |
|

|
 |

|
 |
 
Y. Antov, A. Barbul, H. Mantsur, and R. Korenstein
Electroendocytosis: Exposure of Cells to Pulsed Low Electric Fields Enhances Adsorption and Uptake of Macromolecules
Biophys. J.,
March 1, 2005;
88(3):
2206 - 2223.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
 |
|

|
 |

|
 |
 
G. D. Luker, T. P. Flagg, Q. Sha, K. E. Luker, C. M. Pica, C. G. Nichols, and D. Piwnica-Worms
MDR1 P-glycoprotein Reduces Influx of Substrates without Affecting Membrane Potential
J. Biol. Chem.,
December 21, 2001;
276(52):
49053 - 49060.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
 |
|
| This Article |
 |
 |
Abstract
|
 |
Full Text (PDF)
|
 |
All Versions of this Article:
276/42/38457
most recent
M103269200v1
|
 | |