Table 1.

Phospholipid distribution in the membrane single-channel experiments

Compound CMC Nominal [PL] [PL]a {PL}m Mole %PL 
  LUV Planar bilayer LUV Planar bilayer LUV Planar bilayer LUV Planar bilayer 
 μM μM μM μM μM moles/cm2 moles/cm2 mole % mole % 
diC8PC 270a 30 15 2 × 10−11 1 × 10−12 0.4 
diC8PE 230b 30 10 2 × 10−11 1 × 10−12 0.4 
diC8PI 500c 30 20 1.5 1 × 10−11 7 × 10−13 0.3 
diC8PS 500a 30 20 1.5 1 × 10−11 7 × 10−13 0.3 
brain PIP2 30d 50 50 4 × 10−11 2 × 10−11 15 9.0 
Compound CMC Nominal [PL] [PL]a {PL}m Mole %PL 
  LUV Planar bilayer LUV Planar bilayer LUV Planar bilayer LUV Planar bilayer 
 μM μM μM μM μM moles/cm2 moles/cm2 mole % mole % 
diC8PC 270a 30 15 2 × 10−11 1 × 10−12 0.4 
diC8PE 230b 30 10 2 × 10−11 1 × 10−12 0.4 
diC8PI 500c 30 20 1.5 1 × 10−11 7 × 10−13 0.3 
diC8PS 500a 30 20 1.5 1 × 10−11 7 × 10−13 0.3 
brain PIP2 30d 50 50 4 × 10−11 2 × 10−11 15 9.0 

The aqueous phospholipid concentrations and their surface densities and mole percentage in the membrane ([PL]a, {PL}m, and mole %PL, respectively) were calculated according to Bruno et al. (2007) and Rusinova et al. (2011) using 1.2/CMC as an estimate for the (dimensionless) partition coefficient into the membrane (Bullock and Cohen, 1986); the total phospholipid concentration in the membrane was taken to be 1.2 M. This may overestimate the partition coefficient and mole %PL, as Heerklotz and Seelig (2000) found the partition coefficient for diC7PC to be threefold less than predicted using the above estimator. (The difference between the mole fractions in the LUVs vs. the planar bilayer is a result of the different amount of lipids in the different systems.)

a

Zhou et al., 1997.

b

Estimated from the CMC for diC6PE, 12 mM (Zhou et al., 1997), and scaling by the ratio of the CMC for diC8PC over the CMC for diC6PC.

c

Wang et al., 2008.

d

Palmer, 1981; Huang and Huang, 1991; Moens and Bagatolli, 2007.

or Create an Account

Close Modal
Close Modal