FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W1988057637> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W1988057637 endingPage "28182" @default.
• W1988057637 startingPage "28174" @default.
• W1988057637 abstract "Pulmonary surfactant is essential for lung function. It is assembled, stored and secreted as particulate entities (lamellar body-like particles; LBPs). LBPs disintegrate when they contact an air-liquid interface, leading to an instantaneous spreading of material and a decline in surface tension. Here, we demonstrate that the film formed by the adsorbed material spontaneously segregate into distinct ordered and disordered lipid phase regions under unprecedented near-physiological conditions and, unlike natural surfactant purified from bronchoalveolar lavages, dynamically reorganized into highly viscous multilayer domains with complex three-dimensional topographies. Multilayer domains, in coexistence with liquid phases, showed a progressive stiffening and finally solidification, probably driven by a self-driven disassembly of LBPs from a sub-surface compartment. We conclude that surface film formation from LBPs is a highly dynamic and complex process, leading to a more elaborated scenario than that observed and predicted by models using reconstituted, lavaged, or fractionated preparations. Pulmonary surfactant is essential for lung function. It is assembled, stored and secreted as particulate entities (lamellar body-like particles; LBPs). LBPs disintegrate when they contact an air-liquid interface, leading to an instantaneous spreading of material and a decline in surface tension. Here, we demonstrate that the film formed by the adsorbed material spontaneously segregate into distinct ordered and disordered lipid phase regions under unprecedented near-physiological conditions and, unlike natural surfactant purified from bronchoalveolar lavages, dynamically reorganized into highly viscous multilayer domains with complex three-dimensional topographies. Multilayer domains, in coexistence with liquid phases, showed a progressive stiffening and finally solidification, probably driven by a self-driven disassembly of LBPs from a sub-surface compartment. We conclude that surface film formation from LBPs is a highly dynamic and complex process, leading to a more elaborated scenario than that observed and predicted by models using reconstituted, lavaged, or fractionated preparations. Pulmonary surfactant is essential to form surface active films at the respiratory air-liquid interface, and so to minimize the work of breathing. It forms a continuous network of membrane-based structures, which reduce surface tension and facilitate lung inflation (1Pérez-Gil J. Biochim. Biophys. Acta. 2008; 1778: 1676-1695Crossref PubMed Scopus (355) Google Scholar). Surfactant is assembled in lamellar bodies of alveolar type II (AT II) 3The abbreviations used are: AT IIalveolar type IILBPslamellar body-like particlesDPPCdipalmitoyl phosphatidylcholinerHrelative humidity. cells as densely packed membranous structures, which maintain this compact organization after release into the extracellular fluid, constituting what was termed lamellar body-like particles (LBPs) (2Haller T. Dietl P. Stockner H. Frick M. Mair N. Tinhofer I. Ritsch A. Enhorning G. Putz G. Am. J. Physiol. Lung Cell. Mol. Physiol. 2004; 286: L1009-L1015Crossref PubMed Scopus (52) Google Scholar). Upon adsorption, LBPs transfer surface active components into the air-liquid interface. The mechanisms that have been proposed to promote this transfer include (a) a surface tension-dependent rupture, or unpacking, of the entire particle, followed by a lateral spreading of its contents at the interface (2Haller T. Dietl P. Stockner H. Frick M. Mair N. Tinhofer I. Ritsch A. Enhorning G. Putz G. Am. J. Physiol. Lung Cell. Mol. Physiol. 2004; 286: L1009-L1015Crossref PubMed Scopus (52) Google Scholar), (b) unfolding of LBPs and their rearrangement into single but interwoven lipid bilayers (tubular myelin) that feed the interface via monolayer/bilayer contact sites (3Kashchiev D. Exerowa D. Eur. Biophys. J. 2001; 30: 34-41Crossref PubMed Scopus (29) Google Scholar), and (c) decomposition and fragmentation of LBPs into other smaller functional units within the alveolar lining fluid (4Sato S. Kishikawa T. Med. Electron Microsc. 2001; 34: 142-151Crossref PubMed Scopus (14) Google Scholar) or the interface (5Veldhuizen R.A. Yao L.J. Lewis J.F. Exp. Lung Res. 1999; 25: 127-141Crossref PubMed Scopus (24) Google Scholar). At present, all these mechanisms seem possible, but the relative contribution of each of them in vivo is not known (6Perez-Gil J. Weaver T.E. Physiology. 2010; 25: 132-141Crossref PubMed Scopus (200) Google Scholar). alveolar type II lamellar body-like particles dipalmitoyl phosphatidylcholine relative humidity. In classical views of surfactant function, adsorbed material forms a stable monolayer, supposedly enriched in DPPC, able to tolerate high lateral compressions at inspiration, and re-expands after surface relaxation (7Goerke J. Biochim. Biophys. Acta. 1998; 1408: 79-89Crossref PubMed Scopus (585) Google Scholar). More recently, it has been proposed that interfacial lipid/protein complexes are interconnected with subsurface aggregates (1Pérez-Gil J. Biochim. Biophys. Acta. 2008; 1778: 1676-1695Crossref PubMed Scopus (355) Google Scholar, 8Possmayer F. Nag K. Rodriguez K. Qanbar R. Schürch S. Comp. Biochem. Physiol. A Mol. Integr. Physiol. 2001; 129: 209-220Crossref PubMed Scopus (122) Google Scholar, 9Schürch S. Qanbar R. Bachofen H. Possmayer F. Biol. Neonate. 1995; 67: 61-76Crossref PubMed Scopus (170) Google Scholar). Moreover, a coexistence between ordered and disordered phases is perceived (9Schürch S. Qanbar R. Bachofen H. Possmayer F. Biol. Neonate. 1995; 67: 61-76Crossref PubMed Scopus (170) Google Scholar, 10Bertocchi C. Ravasio A. Bernet S. Putz G. Dietl P. Haller T. Biophys. J. 2005; 89: 1353-1361Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (21) Google Scholar, 11Bernardino de la Serna J. Perez-Gil J. Simonsen A.C. Bagatolli L.A. J. Biol. Chem. 2004; 279: 40715-40722Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (232) Google Scholar, 12de la Serna J.B. Orädd G. Bagatolli L.A. Simonsen A.C. Marsh D. Lindblom G. Perez-Gil J. Biophys. J. 2009; 97: 1381-1389Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (74) Google Scholar), whose occurrence and significance under the actual physiological constraints is still under debate, with surfactant proteins (SP-A, -B, and -C) playing roles in the reversible translocation and stabilization of surface films (reviewed in Ref. 1Pérez-Gil J. Biochim. Biophys. Acta. 2008; 1778: 1676-1695Crossref PubMed Scopus (355) Google Scholar). Here, we investigated surface film formation by LBPs at an inverted air-liquid interface (10Bertocchi C. Ravasio A. Bernet S. Putz G. Dietl P. Haller T. Biophys. J. 2005; 89: 1353-1361Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (21) Google Scholar) by fluorescence microscopy of phase selective dyes (Bodipy-PC and DiI). Previous studies had shown that differential partition properties of these two probes permit detection of segregated fluid-ordered (DiI) and fluid disordered (Bodipy-PC) regions in surfactant membranes (11Bernardino de la Serna J. Perez-Gil J. Simonsen A.C. Bagatolli L.A. J. Biol. Chem. 2004; 279: 40715-40722Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (232) Google Scholar, 12de la Serna J.B. Orädd G. Bagatolli L.A. Simonsen A.C. Marsh D. Lindblom G. Perez-Gil J. Biophys. J. 2009; 97: 1381-1389Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (74) Google Scholar). Here, fluorescence staining permitted detection of phase separation but also the accumulation of surfactant into multilayers. Additionally, surface topography was mapped by conventional and scanning reflected-light microscopy. The images obtained produced a true three-dimensional representation of the texture of the surfactant film. Beside the methods used, the strength and novelty of our approach is the fact that we used surfactant directly in the form it is secreted (2Haller T. Dietl P. Stockner H. Frick M. Mair N. Tinhofer I. Ritsch A. Enhorning G. Putz G. Am. J. Physiol. Lung Cell. Mol. Physiol. 2004; 286: L1009-L1015Crossref PubMed Scopus (52) Google Scholar). This is important because whole bronchoalveolar lavage, from which natural surfactant preparations are usually obtained, collects structures from different regions of the respiratory tract, and may contain material that is already considerably modified and/or does not necessarily contain the intact functional complexes as they are preassembled within the cells. Furthermore, we performed the experiments at 37 °C and 100% rH. Both factors are normally not considered in traditional surface biophysical measurements because of technical difficulties, except in the captive bubble surfactometer, where optical inspections with high resolution are not applicable (13Schurch S. Bachofen H. Possmayer F. Comp. Biochem. Physiol A Mol. Integr. Physiol. 2001; 129: 195-207Crossref PubMed Scopus (92) Google Scholar). Our measurements demonstrated that LBPs form, through a highly dynamic reorganization, interfacial films with defined two-dimensional and three-dimensional complexities and very limited lateral diffusion. Possible impacts on our understanding of the in vivo situation, as well as differences in the biophysical behavior as compared with other surfactant materials, are discussed. Chemicals were from Sigma, Bodipy-PC [2- (4,4-difluoro-5,7-dimethyl-4-bora-3a,4a-diaza-s-indacene-3-dodecanoyl)-1-hexadecanoyl-sn-glycero-3-phosphocholine], and DiI [1,1′-dioctadecyl-3,3,3′,3′-tetramethylindocarbocyanine perchlorate] from Invitrogen-Molecular Probes. The bulk solution contained, in mm: NaCl 140, KCl 5, MgCl2 1, CaCl2 2, HEPES 10 (pH 7.4). LBPs were harvested from the supernatants of purified rat AT II cells grown on Petri dishes, stimulated for 6 h at 37 °C with intermittent shaking by ATP (100 μm) and phorbol 12-myristate 13-acetate (100 nm) in bulk solution supplemented with antibiotics as described (2Haller T. Dietl P. Stockner H. Frick M. Mair N. Tinhofer I. Ritsch A. Enhorning G. Putz G. Am. J. Physiol. Lung Cell. Mol. Physiol. 2004; 286: L1009-L1015Crossref PubMed Scopus (52) Google Scholar). With this stimulation, AT II cells release a considerable amount of surfactant phospholipids and proteins (14Andreeva A.V. Kutuzov M.A. Voyno-Yasenetskaya T.A. Am. J. Physiol. Lung Cell. Mol. Physiol. 2007; 293: L259-L271Crossref PubMed Scopus (163) Google Scholar, 15Haller T. Ortmayr J. Friedrich F. Völkl H. Dietl P. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 1998; 95: 1579-1584Crossref PubMed Scopus (126) Google Scholar, 16Wemhöner A. Frick M. Dietl P. Jennings P. Haller T. J. Biomol. Screen. 2006; 11: 286-295Crossref PubMed Scopus (17) Google Scholar). After collection, supernatants were aliquoted and stored at −20 °C until use. Morphology of LBPs was analyzed by transmission EM of re-thawed samples (see below). They showed different packing densities and were partially disorganized (Fig. 1A). Tubular myelin was not detectable. Before use, suspended LBPs were also routinely labeled with FM 1–43 and inspected by microscopy for a particulate appearance (2Haller T. Dietl P. Stockner H. Frick M. Mair N. Tinhofer I. Ritsch A. Enhorning G. Putz G. Am. J. Physiol. Lung Cell. Mol. Physiol. 2004; 286: L1009-L1015Crossref PubMed Scopus (52) Google Scholar). Phospholipids were quantified by phosphorous analysis or by choline determination as described (17Garcia-Verdugo I. Ravasio A. de Paco E.G. Synguelakis M. Ivanova N. Kanellopoulos J. Haller T. Am. J. Physiol. Lung Cell. Mol. Physiol. 2008; 295: L708-L717Crossref PubMed Scopus (24) Google Scholar). Surfactant from porcine lung lavages was purified and separated from blood components by NaBr density-gradient centrifugation (18Taeusch H.W. de la Serna J.B. Perez-Gil J. Alonso C. Zasadzinski J.A. Biophys. J. 2005; 89: 1769-1779Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (137) Google Scholar). This preparation presumably contained both large and small aggregates. Stock solutions of Bodipy-PC and DiI were prepared in DMSO (1 mg/ml). Surfactants were stained, by incubation for 2 h at 37 °C, with an equimolar mixture of Bodipy-PC and DiI at a total dye/surfactant molar ratio of 3%. For FRAP, LBPs were stained only with Bodipy-PC (3% mol/mol). For analysis of SP-A and SP-D content, SDS/PAGE was performed using 12% acrylamide gels under reducing conditions, in the presence of 5% β-mercaptoethanol. Proteins were transferred to nitrocellulose membranes using a semidry transfer system at 20 V for 20 min. For analysis of SP-B and SP-C, 16% acrylamide gels were run under non-reducing conditions, and proteins were transferred to nitrocellulose membranes (Amersham Biosciences) or PVDF membranes (Bio-Rad), respectively, using a wet transfer system at 300 mA for 1 h. Blocking, washing, and incubation with the antibodies were performed using a protein detection system under vacuum (SNAP i.d., Millipore Corp.). The primary antibodies used were: rabbit anti-SP-B (1:5000), rabbit anti-mature-SP-C (1:7000), mouse anti-SP-D (1:5000) (all from Seven Hills Bioreagents, OH), and rabbit anti-SP-A (1:2000) (kindly supplied by Dr. J. Wright, from Duke University). Secondary antibodies were goat anti-rabbit HRP-conjugated (1:10000) (Santa Cruz Biotechnology), and anti-mouse peroxidase conjugated (1:10000) (Sigma Aldrich). Positive controls loaded in the corresponding westerns were 0.1 μg of SP-A and SP-D, and 0.5 μg of SP-B and SP-C. Both hydrophobic proteins were purified from porcine surfactant through organic extraction and gel-penetration chromatography. SP-A was a human protein generously given by Dr. C. Casals, from Universidad Complutense, and SP-D control was a recombinant SP-D form kindly provided by Dr. E. Crouch, from Washington University at St. Louis. LBPs were concentrated by ultracentrifugation before being loaded in the gels. They contained, as surfactant purified from lavages, the entire protein spectrum except SP-D (Fig. 1B). A volume of 10 ml of LBPs with a lipid concentration of 32.3 μg/ml was fixed by incubation with 2.5% glutaraldehyde (TAAB) for 6 h at 4 °C. After centrifugation and washing with phosphate buffer 0.1 m, the pellet was post-fixed with osmium tetroxide (TAAB) 1% for 1 h and washed again three times with distilled water for 10 min each. Dehydration of the samples was performed with increasing concentrations of acetone from 30 to 100%, incubating each solution for 10 min. Infiltration with the Spurr resin (TAAB) was developed with the following concentrations of resin/acetone: 1/3 for 1 h, 1/1 for 1 h, 3/1 for 2 h, pure resin overnight, and pure resin 1 h. Resin polymerization was performed at 60 °C for 48 h. Ultrathin sections of the resin-embedded samples were stained with uranyl acetate and lead citrate, and observed with a JEOL 1010 transmission electron microscope (Jeol). Previously, the inverted interface was used to analyze surfactant adsorption and surface film formation (2Haller T. Dietl P. Stockner H. Frick M. Mair N. Tinhofer I. Ritsch A. Enhorning G. Putz G. Am. J. Physiol. Lung Cell. Mol. Physiol. 2004; 286: L1009-L1015Crossref PubMed Scopus (52) Google Scholar, 10Bertocchi C. Ravasio A. Bernet S. Putz G. Dietl P. Haller T. Biophys. J. 2005; 89: 1353-1361Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (21) Google Scholar). For this investigation, the setup was modified as follows: A glass coverslip (Fig. 2A) confines a space underneath the interface in which temperature and humidity could be kept constant by a slow convective flow of water-saturated air. The interface was thermostatted to yield 37 ± 0.1 °C in the air and fluid sides of the interface, respectively. By filling the chamber with buffered solution, a clean interface immediately formed at the aperture plane below. Thereafter, LBPs were added on top (2 μg into a final chamber volume of 1 ml), and came into contact with the interface by sedimentation. Surface properties (FIGURE 8, FIGURE 9) were probed with micropipettes made of borosilicate, pulled to end with a closed hairpin (< 10 μm), and lowered by a micromanipulator 25 μm beyond the interface. Analysis of meniscus shape was performed by applying a threshold function as described in the legend to Fig. 9.FIGURE 8Stiffening of the surface coat. A, measurement of fluorescent bead mobility. Reflection images (top) illustrate the status of the interface at 0 and 60 min. Insets show the trajectories of surface-embedded fluorescent beads during 4 s exposure times used to analyze the covered distances. Left plot (mean ± S.D.; n = 24) reveals a slowdown of movements. Right plot, comparison at time 60 min with purified surfactant (PS) is shown in the bar chart (n = 6). B, a line crossing flat and light scattering regions along which FRAP was performed. Fluorescence recovery (%If) was measured in the indicated regions (n = 5) and purified surfactant (n = 6). C, microtip-induced surface mobility (see also Fig. 9). Tip movement was along dashed lines with a stop at the circles. Arrows indicate evoked movement of selected surface structures before and after tip movement.View Large Image Figure ViewerDownload Hi-res image Download (PPT)FIGURE 9Estimation of local surface tension. A, puncture of the interface by a glass μtip enforces a fluid meniscus whose shape is depending on surface tension, contact angle, and gravitation (wetting is assumed to be complete). Meniscoid curvature can be analyzed by the microscope's image function upon epiillumination: Incident light from the objective is reflected to, or away from, the objective, depending on the angle of the surface. Below a critical incident angle (C.a.), light back reflection into the objective approaches zero (gray region). a and b illustrate 2 different menisci (as a result of different surface tensions), leading to the corresponding diameters a′, b′ of central dark image regions, the areas of which were used to estimate surface tension. B, line scans through the tip center (along dashed line in image) were used to define a threshold level (gray dotted line). Pixels with intensities below were used to calculate the central dark area (indicated by the bright circle) of diameter b′. According to A, a decrease in surface tension (e.g. by LBPs) leads an increase in the area below the threshold (a′). C, evaluation and results of the method, using the calculated dark areas and different surfactants, all at 37 °C and 100% rH. All surfactants yielded statistically different values (p ≤ 0.025) except DPPC compared with purified surfactant. Different concentrations within each group were not different. D, example of a measurement with LBPs. Top, only flat regions were used for C. Bottom, light scattering structures resisted penetration. They were lifted (here: 10 μm), leading to an asymmetric shading (meniscus).View Large Image Figure ViewerDownload Hi-res image Download (PPT) Fluorescence and reflected light microscopy were performed by epiillumination (Fig. 2B) with an inverted microscope (Zeiss 100) and a dry objective (Plan-Neofluar, 20×, N.A. 0.5; Zeiss). The light source (Polychrome II, Till Photonics) allowed a quick change (< 5 ms) between 470 nm (fluorescence) and 620 nm (reflection). Light was further filtered by a dualband excitation filter (480/593) and directed by the first dichroic beam splitter (505) toward the interface. Fluorescent or reflected light, after passing the first dichroic, were split by a second dichroic (565) mounted in a real-time dual color imaging device (Dual-View, Optical Insights). Split images either passed a 510 ± 10 nm for Bodipy-PC or a 630 ± 50 nm filter for DiI or reflected light. The two images were displayed on separated parts of a CCD chip (Imago-SVGA, Till Photonics), operated at an acquisition rate of 1 frame/3 s and a binning factor of 2. Using this optical configuration, Bodipy-PC and DiI fluorescence could be recorded synchronously, followed by reflection images taken 10 ms thereafter. Furthermore, crosstalk between the channels was negligible: light reflection did not contribute to fluorescence, nor was DiI emission (red) detectable in the green channel (Bodipy), whereas 3% of Bodipy emission bleached into the red one. However, Bodipy-PC at high concentrations is subject to self-quenching and to an increase in its Stoke's shift (19Dahim M. Mizuno N.K. Li X.M. Momsen W.E. Momsen M.M. Brockman H.L. Biophys. J. 2002; 83: 1511-1524Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (73) Google Scholar). Both artifacts have to be taken into account. A Zeiss Laser Scan Microscope (LSM 410) equipped with an argon (488 nm; 60 milliwatt) and a helium-neon laser (543 nm; 0.5 milliwatt) and a Plan-Neofluar, 20×, N.A. 0.5 was used for FRAP and z-stacking of the interfacial film. For FRAP, Bodipy-PC was visualized by the argon laser attenuated to 10% and bleached by operating it at full power for 2 min. Emitted light was directed through a > 515 nm filter before entering the photomultiplier tube. For z-stacks, Bodipy-PC was visualized as above, whereas DiI and reflection images were taken with the helium-neon laser. DiI and reflection images were separated by inserting or removing, respectively, a long-pass filter (>620 nm) in the light path. Mean fluorescence intensity (If) indicates the intensity per unit of area (pixels), If-bg denotes background corrected If. Background was determined from a clean air-liquid interface. Thus, If-bg excludes fluorescence from the bulk and scattered light. However, all images are shown without background correction. Image and data analysis was performed with Till Vision, ImageJ, Microsoft Excel and Prism. We used unpaired t-tests, and data are reported as arithmetic mean of three independent experiments ± S.E. (unless otherwise indicated). Within the 1st min after addition, LBPs contacting a clean interface (γ ≈72 mN/m) instantaneously and spontaneously disaggregated (defined as sudden disappearance of particulate fluorescence, Fig. 3A, 1st min). Disaggregation was fast (<6 s in 88.8 ± 7.0% of all events, Fig. 3C), particularly for the very first LBPs (<3 s in 71.4%, disaggregation occurred in 100%). Upon adsorption, phospholipids freely dispersed and covered the interface as unmasked by augmented fluorescence within areas devoid of particles (Fig. 3A, 2nd min). Thus, LBPs rapidly formed a phospholipid-based interfacial layer. Disaggregation of LBPs arriving after the 1st min became less common and slowed down, and terminated completely after the 3rd min (Fig. 3, B and C). LBPs constantly approached the interface for the entire duration of the experiments (1 h), revealed by a nearly linear increase in the fluorescence intensity of both dyes (Fig. 4C). However, after the initial phase (3 min), the organization of surfactant and the behavior of LBPs changed notably: highly reflective structures appeared in form of irregular dots (Fig. 3A, 2nd min, reflection). These dots, probably surfactant in bi- or multilayers, but not compact LBPs, freely moved and by contact with each other or the capillary walls aggregated into coral-like structures that primarily stained with DiI (Fig. 3A, after 3rd min). At this time, LBPs moving through regions of low reflectance slowly associated with the reflecting structures (Fig. 3, A, after 3rd min, B and C). Thus, highly reflective coral-like structures developed by association of material already present at the interface in form of multilayer domains, or by direct incorporation of newly arriving LBPs. Accumulation of surfactant within these structures also led to lateral growth and development of three-dimensional topographies, visible as light scattering structures in Fig. 4A. Within the first 5 min, these textures already occupied a large portion of the interface (26.6 ± 14.6%). Thereafter, their growth abruptly slowed down but still continued, and after 60 min 81 ± 3.5% of the interface was covered (Fig. 4, A and B). The whole process of LBPs adsorption, interfacial transfer of material and its organization into two-dimensional and three-dimensional segregated structures can be seen in the supplemental movie. The three channels, running synchronously, show how the three-dimensional structures (presumably multilayer aggregates; left), Bodipy-PC labeled areas (presumably liquid-disordered states; center) and DiI-labeled regions (presumably liquid-ordered phase; right) appear and evolve in the film within 1 h of experiment (compressed to one frame/15 s). Bodipy-PC and DiI incorporated within light scattering regions (Figs. 4A and 5B). In contrast, the intensities of both dyes in “flat” regions only slightly increased. Fluorescence analyses suggest that light scattering regions were formed by the build-up of surfactant into multilayers whereas flat regions are phospholipid monolayers. Accumulation of surfactant in light scattering regions is also shown by the ratio of dye intensities (Fig. 5C). Distribution of Bodipy-PC between multi- and monolayers plateaued after ∼25 min, obviously indicating equal partition between domains. Similarly, but later (at ∼50 min), also the DiI ratio leveled off. To compare the proportion of the dyes in one region, the background corrected intensities of each dye were normalized for their total intensity at the interface at any given time (practically, values in Fig. 5B were divided by those in Fig. 4C). The results (nIDiI-bg for DiI and nIBodipy-PC-bg for Bodipy-PC) were independent of differences in amounts and/or fluorescence efficiencies of the dyes, which may contribute to the divergence seen in Fig. 4C. As shown in Fig. 5D, Bodipy-PC prevailed over DiI in flat regions, suggesting a primarily liquid expanded state here. However, also in these regions, a coexistence of liquid expanded and ordered phases was observed (Fig. 6A). Conversely, DiI prevailed in light scattering regions, especially during the early stages (<10 min). Thereafter both dyes were nearly balanced (Fig. 5D). A marked phase separation could be seen within multilayer regions (strong light scatter), during their growth (Fig. 6B): DiI accumulated preferentially in spots at the border of these regions, whereas Bodipy-PC distributed more evenly. Moreover, light scattering structures without correspondence in fluorescence were observed, probably denoting surfactant in a gel-like phase excluding both dyes (Fig. 6A).FIGURE 6Segregation of liquid ordered and expanded phases as revealed by Bodipy-PC and DiI. A, within flat regions at 15 min. B, distribution of Bodipy-PC and DiI with respect to the surface topography (reflection) at 30 min. Enlarged views are the areas within the white squares, black bar, 30 μm. C, appearance of the surface film originating from surfactant purified from lung lavages. Experimental conditions in B and C are identical.View Large Image Figure ViewerDownload Hi-res image Download (PPT) In contrast to LBPs, surfactant purified from lung lavages behaved considerably different (Fig. 6C). Whereas optically flat regions (low reflectance) were similar, prominent light scattering structures did not develop. Instead, regions of high reflectivity but low light scatter were seen. Moreover, dye separation was more pronounced than compared with LBPs: Bodipy-PC preferentially stained the low reflective regions and DiI, completely absent there, concentrated within the highly reflective ones. As with LBPs, regions in a gel-like type of phase, excluding both dyes, were observed. The lateral and the spatial organization of interfacial structures were studied by LSM. Images from different focal planes (Fig. 7, A and B) demonstrate that multilayers have an extension in the z-direction. Analysis of fluorescence contrast and defocus aberration (Fig. 7, A and C; lines 1 and 2) unveiled that these three-dimensional structures are present in the subphase and also extend into the air. On the other hand, the lateral distribution of the dyes largely corresponded throughout the region imaged in Fig. 7A. Noteworthy, the intensity profiles of DiI and Bodipy-PC (Fig. 7, A and D, line 3) showed a stepwise distribution, again suggesting accumulation of surfactant within multilayer domains. Moreover, it revealed that dye co-localization was particularly high at the border of flat and light scattering regions (right end of line 3), but low toward their center (central and left part of line 3). Fluorescent beads (1 μm) were embedded at the interface, and their random motion quantified by long exposure times (Fig. 8A). Before applying LBPs (at time 0), motions were 19.0 ± 6.8 μm/s, and slowed down during ongoing LBP-sedimentation and almost terminated at full surfactant coverage (0.13 ± 0.2 μm/s). This “stiffening”, similarly observed with purified surfactant (0.46 ± 0.47 μm/s), was further investigated by FRAP (Fig. 8B). Flat regions showed a recovery of 82.4 ± 11.5% of initial fluorescence within 10 min, light scattering regions 10.0 ± 4.0%, and border regions were in between (30.1 ± 13.2%). Recovery rates in purified surfactant were significantly higher (45.2 ± 3.6%) than those in light scattering regions of LBPs, but significantly lower than in flat regions (p ≤ 0.0025). The different results compared with the bead experiments are certainly related to the fact that FRAP is providing a region-dependent information, and that it is more sensitive for molecular movements than video microscopy of almost stagnant beads. Consistent with FRAP, and in contrast to purified surfactant, movements of a microtip inserted through th" @default.
• W1988057637 created "2016-06-24" @default.
• W1988057637 creator A5025350443 @default.
• W1988057637 creator A5046250168 @default.
• W1988057637 creator A5056665716 @default.
• W1988057637 creator A5057599018 @default.
• W1988057637 creator A5068169887 @default.
• W1988057637 date "2010-09-01" @default.
• W1988057637 modified "2023-10-03" @default.
• W1988057637 title "Lamellar Bodies Form Solid Three-dimensional Films at the Respiratory Air-Liquid Interface" @default.
• W1988057637 cites W1965043676 @default.
• W1988057637 cites W1968126021 @default.
• W1988057637 cites W1973137795 @default.
• W1988057637 cites W1975057903 @default.
• W1988057637 cites W1976663468 @default.
• W1988057637 cites W1979219993 @default.
• W1988057637 cites W2009919797 @default.
• W1988057637 cites W2013209285 @default.
• W1988057637 cites W2022820324 @default.
• W1988057637 cites W2022898731 @default.
• W1988057637 cites W2023727546 @default.
• W1988057637 cites W2029839408 @default.
• W1988057637 cites W2034743402 @default.
• W1988057637 cites W2041289486 @default.
• W1988057637 cites W2044079201 @default.
• W1988057637 cites W2056656437 @default.
• W1988057637 cites W2061805206 @default.
• W1988057637 cites W2072744520 @default.
• W1988057637 cites W2076160897 @default.
• W1988057637 cites W2077559371 @default.
• W1988057637 cites W2085430440 @default.
• W1988057637 cites W2087622099 @default.
• W1988057637 cites W2089578439 @default.
• W1988057637 cites W2096728125 @default.
• W1988057637 cites W2097120859 @default.
• W1988057637 cites W2098199598 @default.
• W1988057637 cites W2113455304 @default.
• W1988057637 cites W2133077619 @default.
• W1988057637 cites W2142973230 @default.
• W1988057637 cites W2143293019 @default.
• W1988057637 cites W2150973609 @default.
• W1988057637 cites W2159709382 @default.
• W1988057637 cites W2161236807 @default.
• W1988057637 cites W2166687021 @default.
• W1988057637 cites W2172048985 @default.
• W1988057637 cites W2172162724 @default.
• W1988057637 doi "https://doi.org/10.1074/jbc.m110.106518" @default.
• W1988057637 hasPubMedCentralId "https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/2934682" @default.
• W1988057637 hasPubMedId "https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/20558742" @default.
• W1988057637 hasPublicationYear "2010" @default.
• W1988057637 type Work @default.
• W1988057637 sameAs 1988057637 @default.
• W1988057637 citedByCount "28" @default.
• W1988057637 countsByYear W19880576372012 @default.
• W1988057637 countsByYear W19880576372013 @default.
• W1988057637 countsByYear W19880576372014 @default.
• W1988057637 countsByYear W19880576372015 @default.
• W1988057637 countsByYear W19880576372016 @default.
• W1988057637 countsByYear W19880576372017 @default.
• W1988057637 countsByYear W19880576372018 @default.
• W1988057637 countsByYear W19880576372020 @default.
• W1988057637 countsByYear W19880576372021 @default.
• W1988057637 countsByYear W19880576372022 @default.
• W1988057637 countsByYear W19880576372023 @default.
• W1988057637 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W1988057637 hasAuthorship W1988057637A5025350443 @default.
• W1988057637 hasAuthorship W1988057637A5046250168 @default.
• W1988057637 hasAuthorship W1988057637A5056665716 @default.
• W1988057637 hasAuthorship W1988057637A5057599018 @default.
• W1988057637 hasAuthorship W1988057637A5068169887 @default.
• W1988057637 hasBestOaLocation W19880576371 @default.
• W1988057637 hasConcept C105702510 @default.
• W1988057637 hasConcept C113843644 @default.
• W1988057637 hasConcept C127413603 @default.
• W1988057637 hasConcept C134514944 @default.
• W1988057637 hasConcept C145156650 @default.
• W1988057637 hasConcept C159985019 @default.
• W1988057637 hasConcept C185592680 @default.
• W1988057637 hasConcept C192562407 @default.
• W1988057637 hasConcept C42360764 @default.
• W1988057637 hasConcept C534529494 @default.
• W1988057637 hasConcept C54517805 @default.
• W1988057637 hasConcept C55493867 @default.
• W1988057637 hasConcept C58226133 @default.
• W1988057637 hasConcept C77851909 @default.
• W1988057637 hasConcept C86803240 @default.
• W1988057637 hasConceptScore W1988057637C105702510 @default.
• W1988057637 hasConceptScore W1988057637C113843644 @default.
• W1988057637 hasConceptScore W1988057637C127413603 @default.
• W1988057637 hasConceptScore W1988057637C134514944 @default.
• W1988057637 hasConceptScore W1988057637C145156650 @default.
• W1988057637 hasConceptScore W1988057637C159985019 @default.
• W1988057637 hasConceptScore W1988057637C185592680 @default.
• W1988057637 hasConceptScore W1988057637C192562407 @default.
• W1988057637 hasConceptScore W1988057637C42360764 @default.
• W1988057637 hasConceptScore W1988057637C534529494 @default.
• W1988057637 hasConceptScore W1988057637C54517805 @default.
• W1988057637 hasConceptScore W1988057637C55493867 @default.

• next