This protocol details methods for forming supported and suspended lipid bilayers (Figure 1). The first step to forming a supported lipid bilayer is to develop lipid vesicles. The mini extruder allows for small volumes of lipid vesicles to be prepared (1 mL or less), while the large extruder allows for 5-50 mL of lipid vesicles to be prepared in one batch. Size distributions of uni-lipid vesicles formed by either the mini or large extruder are shown in Figure 2A. As the large extruder uses high pressure N2 gas to push the vesicle solution through the polycarbonate membrane, lipid vesicles result in an average size distribution at the target 100 nm hydrodynamic diameter. The mini extruder also results in a uniform distribution, although the vesicle hydrodynamic diameter is slightly larger than the polycarbonate pore size, which is typical for this manual method of extrusion.
Figures 2B-D compare size, polydispersity, and zeta potential of uni-lipid egg PC vesicles and two multi-lipid vesicles composition. Table 1 compares the average hydrodynamic diameter of each lipid vesicle composition. The composition of the first multi-lipid vesicle (ML1) is representative of placental-trophoblast inspired lipid vesicles with a composition of 57:15:8:8:12 % (w/w) of PC: phosphatidylethanolamine (PE): phosphatidylinositol (PI): phosphatidylserine (PS): sphingomyelin (SPH). The size distribution of the egg PC vesicles and ML1 vesicles are highly uniform and nearly identical, with small differences in the average polydispersity (Figure 2A,B). As expected, due to differences in composition, the zeta potential of the egg PC uni-lipid vesicles and the ML1 vesicle were found to differ (Figure 2D). The second multi-lipid vesicle (ML2) is 60% egg PC and 40% 1,2-distearoyl-sn-glycero-3-ethylphosphocholine (EPC). The positive charge of EPC led to a positive zeta potential for these vesicles (Figure 2D), and an increase in polydispersity index of ML2 vesicles was also observed compared to egg PC or ML1 vesicles, likely a result of the specific composition of these vesicles.
QCM-D can be used to form supported lipid bilayers via vesicle rupture on a silica-coated sensor, and ΔF and ΔD during this process are monitored in real time. ΔF is inversely related to mass changes, and increased ΔD indicates increase in the structure fluidity. As vesicles adsorb to the sensor, ΔF decreases and ΔD increases. As the vesicle reach a critical vesicle coverage on the surface, there will be a plateau of the ΔF and ΔD. Finally, as the vesicles rupture, a ΔF increase and ΔD decrease is observed, due to release of encapsulated water from ruptured vesicles and formation of rigid bilayer, respectively. Figure 3 shows the ΔF and ΔD occurring as the vesicles adsorb and rupture on the surface for uni-lipid and multi-lipid bilayer formations. Uni-lipid egg PC vesicles readily adsorb to the surface as shown by the ΔF decrease and ΔD increase. Critical vesicle coverage is reached within 5 min, after which the vesicles begin to rupture. The overall ΔF observed upon supported egg PC bilayer formation is ~-25 Hz, with ΔD of ~0.
ML1 vesicles take longer to adsorb compared to egg PC vesicles and unlike these vesicles, they do not spontaneously rupture, but remain stable on the surface. Instead, an AH peptide is allowed to incubate with the adsorbed vesicles causing their rupture when the AH peptide is removed with a Tris NaCl rinse. During rupture and bilayer formation, the ΔF increase and ΔD decrease is observed, similar to the egg PC vesicles. The ΔF of this multi-lipid bilayer results in approximately -28 Hz and ΔD of approximately 1 × 10-6. Although comparable to the egg PC lipid bilayer, these slight differences in ΔF and ΔD likely indicate the increased fluidity of the bilayer due to the multiple lipid types present in the structure.
After bilayer formation, these structures can be used to study interactions with different compounds. With supported lipid bilayers, ΔF and ΔD can be analyzed before and after introduction of the compound. As an example, DEHP interaction with supported uni- and multi-lipid (ML1) bilayers are shown in Figure 4A,B. In this case, similar levels of DEHP adsorption are observed for both lipid bilayer types (Figure 4A). However, differences in ΔD were observed between the bilayers, with a larger ΔD seen for the egg PC bilayer compared to the ML1 bilayer (Figure 4B). While the supported lipid bilayer allows for the study of the adsorption and potential embedment of compounds of interest along with potential lipid removal, suspended lipid bilayers can provide information on the permeability across the bilayer using a PAMPA. In the case of DEHP, little permeation was observed for both uni- and ML1 bilayers (Figure 4C). Papp calculated for DEHP across a uni-lipid (~5.5 × 10-11 cm/s) and multi-lipid bilayer (~6.5 × 10-6 cm/s) was characteristic of low permeability. However, other compounds may result in greater permeability, which can be investigated using this technique.

Figure 1: Process of forming supported lipid bilayers (top) and suspended lipid bilayers (bottom). Please click here to view a larger version of this figure.

Figure 2: Uni-lipid and multi-lipid vesicle characterization. (A) Hydrodynamic diameter distribution of egg PC vesicles formed using a mini extruder and large extruder. (B) Hydrodynamic diameter distribution of uni-lipid vesicles containing egg PC and two multi-lipid formulations, ML1 (57:15:8:8:12 % (w/w) PC:PE:PI:PS:SPH) and ML2 (60:40 % (w/w) egg PC:EPC). (C) Polydispersity indices of the uni-lipid and multi-lipid vesicles. (D) Zeta potentials of the uni-lipid and multi-lipid vesicles. Results are shown as mean ± standard deviation. Statistical significance was calculated using one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) with Tukey's post hoc analysis (α=0.05, p<0.05 was considered to be statistically significant, *p<0.05, **p<0.01, ***p<0.001, ****p<0.0001). Please click here to view a larger version of this figure.

Figure 3: Uni-lipid egg PC bilayer formation (ΔF in light blue and ΔD in light red) and a multi-lipid bilayer formation (57:15:8:8:12 % (w/w) PC:PE:PI:PS:SPH) (ΔF in dark blue and ΔD in dark red) monitored over time using QCM-D. Dashed lines indicate solution changes for uni-lipid bilayer formation (light blue) and multi-lipid bilayer formation (dark blue). The egg PC bilayer is formed by ~15 min, while the multi-lipid bilayer takes ~45 min and requires addition of the AH peptide. Please click here to view a larger version of this figure.

Figure 4: Molecule interactions with supported and suspended lipid bilayers. (A) ΔF due to DEHP interaction with uni-lipid and multi-lipid (57:15:8:8:12 % (w/w) PC:PE:PI:PS:SPH) bilayers. (B) ΔD due to DEHP interaction with uni-lipid and multi-lipid bilayers. (C) Percent of DEHP permeated across the uni-lipid and multi-lipid suspended bilayers. Results are shown as mean ± standard deviation. Statistical significance was calculated using a student's t-test (α=0.05, p<0.05 was considered to be statistically significant, *p<0.05). Please click here to view a larger version of this figure.
| Uni-lipid vs. multi-lipid | Composition | Extruder | Hydrodynamic diameter (nm) |
| Uni-lipid | 100% egg PC | Mini | 165 ± 1 |
| Uni-lipid | 100% egg PC | Large | 108 ± 2 |
| Multi-lipid | 57:15:8:8:12 % (w/w) PC:PE:PI:PS:SPH | Large | 109 ± 1 |
| Multi-lipid | 60:40 % (w/w) egg PC:EPC | Large | 91.0 ± 0.2 |
Table 1: Lipid vesicle hydrodynamic diameters.