C O M M U N I C A T I O N S
Acknowledgment. We dedicate this paper to Ronald Breslow
on the occasion of his 75th birthday. We thank J.F. Rathman for
assistance with dynamic light scattering measurements and Chun
Liang Yu for synthetic contributions. This work was supported by
the Ohio State University.
Supporting Information Available: Synthetic procedures, light
scattering and fluorescence data. This material is available free of charge
References
Figure 3. (A) Rounds of fusion calibration curve. LUVs with 1:1 NBD/
Rh prepared with increasing dilution to mimic FRET change caused by
fusion. One round of fusion ) dilution by a factor of 2. Less than one
round of fusion represents a mixture of the liposomes at the original
concentration and the one round dye diluted liposomes. (B) Rounds of fusion
in dilution assay with (O) 9 equiv, (4) 4 equiv, and (]) 1 equiv donor
(blank) to acceptor (NBD/Rh) LUVs.
(1) (a) Lee, M. C. S.; Schekman, R. Science 2004, 303 (5657), 479-480. (b)
Peter, B. J.; Kent, H. M.; Mills, I. G.; Vallis, Y.; Butler, P. J. G.; Evans,
P. R.; McMahon, H. T. Science 2004, 303 (5657), 495-499. (c)
Zimmerberg, J.; McLaughlin, S. Curr. Biol. 2004, 14 (6), R250-R252.
(d) Lee Marcus, C. S.; Orci, L.; Hamamoto, S.; Futai, E.; Ravazzola, M.;
Schekman, R. Cell 2005, 122 (4), 605-617.
(2) (a) Bechinger, B. J. Memb. Biol. 1997, 156 (3), 197-211. (b) Pecheur,
E.-I.; Hoekstra, D.; Sainte-Marie, J.; Maurin, L.; Bienvenuee, A.; Philippot,
J. R. Biochemistry 1997, 36 (13), 3773-3781. (c) Pecheur, E.-I.; Martin,
I.; Ruysschaert, J.-M.; Bienvenuee, A.; Hoekstra, D. Biochemistry 1998,
37 (8), 2361-2371. (d) Ulrich, A. S.; Otter, M.; Glabe, C. G.; Hoekstra,
D. J. Biol. Chem. 1998, 273 (27), 16748-16755. (e) Pecheur, E.-I.;
Hoekstra, D. Methods Molec. Biol. 2002, 199 (Liposome Methods and
Protocols), 31-48. (f) Hirosue, S.; Weber, T. Biochemistry 2006, 45 (20),
6476-6487.
4 to NBD/Rh/3 labeled liposomes. More than one full round of
fusion was observed with a 1:9 excess within 20 min, comparable
to fusion rates displayed by native fusion systems in LUVs (Figure
3).7a
(3) (a) Ellens, H.; Bentz, J.; Szoka, F. C. Biochemistry 1985, 24 (13), 3099-
106. (b) Dennison, S. M.; Greenfield, N.; Lenard, J.; Lentz, B. R.
Biochemistry 2002, 41 (50), 14925-14934. (c) Evans, K. O.; Lentz, B.
R. Biochemistry 2002, 41 (4), 1241-1249.
To distinguish this process from simple lipid mixing of the outer
monolayers of each membrane, Rh/4 LUVs were reacted with
NBD/3 LUVs in which NBD fluorophores on the outer monolayer
were selectively destroyed by reduction with sodium dithionite,16
which cannot effectively cross the membrane. FRET observed upon
reaction of complementary recognition vesicles must result from
the mixing of the inner monolayers that contain intact NBD, which
is by definition membrane fusion. Gratifyingly, these experiments
revealed a strong NBD/Rh FRET upon mixing of 3 and 4
derivatized liposomes, establishing this system as truly fusogenic
(Figure 2B).
Fusion requires a surface charge differential between donor and
acceptor LUVs; as 2% 3 in egg PC LUVs contributes only 1% net
negative surface charge, magainin and 4 remain bound to the LUVs
with 10% POPG, in trans to 3. Liposome preparations in which
both 3 and 4 containing LUVs had 10% PG lipids were nonsor
very weaklysfusogenic and nonaggregating as judged by light
scattering and fluorescence measurements. One plausible explana-
tion for this is that flattening of the charge gradient between the
two liposome populations allows the magainin-vancomycin con-
jugate to equilibrate between the two membranes, leading to a
decrease of membrane apposition and fusion rate.
These results indicate a fusion process in which surface binding
initiates a highly aggregated state where fusion occurs rapidly and
slows as the lipid binding partners increasingly occupy the same
membrane: as membrane binding interactions in cis compete with
interactions in trans, the number of binding partners available to
catalyze membrane fusion decreases, as does the reaction rate and
vesicular aggregation state. Interestingly, fusion rate is likely
determined by the membrane location of the binding partner 4 and
therefore the trans gradient of negatively charged lipids, which
erodes as fusion proceeds. Further examination is underway to
quantify the behavior of this system and evaluate its potential as a
selective delivery vehicle. This initial study establishes the control-
lable and biomimetic ability of designed fusogens to activate
specific membrane mergers in synthetic membranes via small-
molecule recognition; this has resonance with goals in targeted
chemical delivery and nanoscale compartmentalized chemistry.
(4) Jahn, R.; Lang, T.; Sudhof, T. C. Cell 2003, 112 (4), 519-533.
(5) McNew, J. A.; Weber, T.; Parlati, F.; Johnston, R. J.; Melia, T. J.; Sollner,
T. H.; Rothman, J. E. J. Cell Biol. 2000, 150 (1), 105-117.
(6) Sollner, T. H. Curr. Opin. Cell Biol. 2004, 16 (4), 429-435.
(7) (a) Parlati, F.; Weber, T.; McNew, J. A.; Westermann, B.; Sollner, T. H.;
Rothman, J. E. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 1999, 96 (22), 12565-12570.
(b) Paumet, F.; Rahimian, V.; Rothman, J. E. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A.
2004, 101 (10), 3376-3380.
(8) (a) Richard, A.; Marchi-Artzner, V.; Lalloz, M.-N.; Brienne, M.-J.; Artzner,
F.; Gulik-Krzywicki, T.; Guedeau-Boudeville, M.-A.; Lehn, J.-M. Proc.
Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 2004, 101 (43), 15279-15284. (b) Marchi-Artzner,
V.; Gulik-Krzywicki, T.; Guedeau-Boudeville, M.-A.; Gosse, C.; Sand-
erson, J. M.; Dedieu, J.-C.; Lehn, J.-M. ChemPhysChem 2001, 2 (6), 367-
376. (c) Marchi-Artzner, V.; Jullien, L.; Gulik-Krzywicki, T.; Lehn, J.-
M. Chem. Commun. 1997 (1), 117-118. (d) Paleos, C. M.; Tsiourvas, D.
J. Mol. Recognition 2006, 19 (1), 60-67.
(9) (a) Walsh, C. T. Science 1993, 261 (5119), 308-309. (b) Kahne, D.;
Leimkuhler, C.; Lu, W.; Walsh, C. Chem. ReV. 2005, 105 (2), 425-448.
(10) (a) Sharman, G. J.; Try, A. C.; Dancer, R. J.; Cho, Y. R.; Staroske, T.;
Bardsley, B.; Maguire, A. J.; Cooper, M. A.; O’Brien, D. P.; Williams,
D. H. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 1997, 119 (50), 12041-12047. (b) Try, A. C.;
Sharman, G. J.; Dancer, R. J.; Bardsley, B.; Entress, R. M. H.; Williams,
D. H. J. Chem. Soc., Perkin Trans. 1 1997 (19), 2911-2917. (c) Metallo,
S. J.; Kane, R. S.; Holmlin, R. E.; Whitesides, G. M. J. Am. Chem. Soc.
2003, 125 (15), 4534-4540. (d) Sundram, U. N.; Griffin, J. H. J. Org.
Chem. 1995, 60 (5), 1102-1103.
(11) (a) Frisch, B.; Boeckler, C.; Schuber, F. Bioconjugate Chem. 1996, 7 (2),
180-186. (b) Rich, D. H.; Gesellchen, P. D.; Tong, A.; Cheung, A.;
Buckner, C. K. J. Med. Chem. 1975, 18 (10), 1004-1010.
(12) (a) Zasloff, M. Nature 2002, 415 (6870), 389-395. (b) Zasloff, M. Proc.
Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 1987, 84 (15), 5449-5453.
(13) (a) Tew, G. N.; Liu, D.; Chen, B.; Doerksen, R. J.; Kaplan, J.; Carroll, P.
J.; Klein, M. L.; DeGrado, W. F. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 2002, 99
(8), 5110-5114. (b) Porter, E. A.; Weisblum, B.; Gellman, S. H. J. Am.
Chem. Soc. 2002, 124 (25), 7324-7330. (b) Patch, J. A.; Barron, A. E.
Curr. Opin. Chem. Biol. 2002, 6 (6), 872-877.
(14) (a) Wieprecht, T.; Apostolov, O.; Seelig, J. Biophys. Chem. 2000, 85 (2-
3), 187-198. (b) Wieprecht, T.; Beyermann, M.; Seelig, J. Biochemistry
1999, 38 (32), 10377-10387. (c) Wenk, M. R.; Seelig, J. Biochemistry
1998, 37 (11), 3909-3916.
(15) Struck, D. K.; Hoekstra, D.; Pagano, R. E. Biochemistry 1981, 20 (14),
4093-4099.
(16) (a) McIntyre, J. C.; Sleight, R. G. Biochemistry 1991, 30 (51), 11819-
11827. (b) Duzgunes, N.; Allen, T. M.; Fedor, J.; Papahadjopoulos, D.
Biochemistry 1987, 26 (25), 8435-8442. (c) Weber, T.; Zemelman, B.
V.; McNew, J. A.; Westermann, B.; Gmachl, M.; Parlati, F.; So¨llner, T.
H.; Rothman, J. E. Cell 1998, 92, 759-772.
JA0644576
9
J. AM. CHEM. SOC. VOL. 128, NO. 45, 2006 14431