Impact of monoolein on aquaporin1-based supported lipid bilayer membranes

Figures & data

Figure 1. In situ AFM images (scan size 5 × 5 μm², z-scale 500 nm) of (A) NTR7450 and (B) NF270.

Figure 2. In situ AFM images (scan size 5 × 5 μm², z-scale 500 nm) of DPPC/MO vesicles deposited on NTR7450 surface with different R_MO values, (A) R_MO = 0, (B) R_MO = 3/7, (C) R_MO = 5/5 and (D) R_MO = 7/3; DOPC/MO vesicles deposited on NTR7450 surface with different R_MO, (E) R_MO = 0, (F) R_MO = 3/7, (G) R_MO = 5/5 and (H) R_MO = 7/3.

Figure 3. In situ AFM images (scan size 5 × 5 μm², z-scale 500 nm) of DPPC/MO vesicles deposited on NF270 surface with different R_MO values, (A) R_MO = 0, (B) R_MO = 3/7, (C) R_MO = 5/5 and (D) R_MO = 7/3; DOPC/MO vesicles deposited on NF270 surface with different R_MO, (E) R_MO = 0, (F) R_MO = 3/7, (G) R_MO = 5/5 and (H) R_MO = 7/3.

Figure 4. FTIR spectra of NF membrane supported lipid membranes. Top: NTR7450 SLBs (R_MO = 5/5) membrane (A); bottom: NF270 SLBs (R_MO = 5/5) membrane (B).

Table 1. Zeta potential of various membranes (pH = 7.5, 1 mM KCl).

Membranes	NTR7450 (mV)	NF270 (mV)
NF membrane	−51	−58
DPPC (RMO = 0)	−36	−41
DPPC/MO (RMO = 5/5)	−30	−29
DOPC (RMO = 0)	−22	−28
DOPC/MO (RMO = 5/5)	−37	−44

Figure 5. Confocal fluorescence images of NTR7450 supported DPPC/MO and DOPC/MO bilayers with 0.5 wt% NBD-PE. (A) DPPC (R_MO = 0), (B) DPPC/MO (R_MO = 5/5), (C) DOPC (R_MO = 0), (D) DOPC/MO (R_MO = 5/5). Inset of (A) is the fluorescence image of virgin NTR7450.

Figure 6. Confocal fluorescence images of NF270 supported DPPC/MO and DOPC/MO bilayers with 0.5 wt% NBD-PE. (A) DPPC (R_MO = 0), (B) DPPC/MO (R_MO = 5/5), (C) DOPC (R_MO = 0), (D) DOPC/MO (R_MO = 5/5). Inset of (A) is the fluorescence image of virgin NF270.

Figure 7. The FRAP curves of NTR7450 (A) and NF270 (B) SLB membranes.

Figure 8. Contact angles of NTR7450 and NF270 SLB membranes. Each point represents the mean ± standard deviation of three samples.

Table 2. Pure water flux (LMH) of NF SLBs membranes.

	DPPC/MO on NTR7450	DOPC/MO on NTR7450	DPPC/MO on NF270	DOPC/MO on NF270
Virgin NF	34.8 ± 1.4	34.8 ± 1.4	101.2 ± 4.6	101.2 ± 4.6
RMO = 0	29.0 ± 0.7	5.8 ± 0.4	96.5 ± 4.5	73.2 ± 2.1
RMO = 3/7	13.5 ± 0.7	7.3 ± 0.5	87.4 ± 3.0	82.9 ± 2.8
RMO = 5/5	14.0 ± 0.7	10.8 ± 0.6	88.8 ± 2.8	87.3 ± 3.1
RMO = 7/3	16.5 ± 1.3	13.5 ± 0.5	94.3 ± 3.8	93.3 ± 3.9

Each point represents the mean ±standard deviation of three samples.

Figure 9. Effect of different content of MO SLBs on the relative pure water flux of SLB membranes.

Figure 10. Pure water flux of NTR7450 and NF270 supported DPPC, DPPC/MO (R_MO = 5/5), DOPC, and DOPC/MO (R_MO = 5/5) bilayer membranes with different R_AQP1.

Table 3. Pure water flux increments (LMH) induced by the incorporation of AQP1.

	NTR7450 supported membranes			NF270 supported membranes
	RAQP1 = 1/800	RAQP1 = 1/200	RAQP1 = 1/50	RAQP1 = 1/800	RAQP1 = 1/200	RAQP1 = 1/50
DPPC	1.7	3.5	4.1	2.0	4.2	4.3
DPPC/MO	2.3	9.9	10.8	4.1	10.0	10.4
DOPC	4.7	14.3	17.0	2.4	11.8	14.1
DOPC/MO	2.1	10.1	11.9	3.1	10.2	11.3

Figure 11. Water flux (A) and NaCl rejection (B) of NTR7450 supported DPPC, DPPC/MO (R_MO = 5/5), DOPC, and DOPC/MO (R_MO = 5/5) bilayer membranes with different R_AQP1.

Figure 12. Water flux (A) and NaCl rejection (B) of NF270 supported DPPC, DPPC/MO (R_MO = 5/5), DOPC, and DOPC/MO (R_MO = 5/5) bilayer membranes with different R_AQP1.