Biomimetic Membranes


Nature provides an excellent palette of highly effective membranes capable of highly selective vectorial transport of a large number of molecular species. It is therefore striking that the membrane industry has developed synthetic separation membrane processes in a very different way [1].

Traditional separation membranes are mostly dense polymeric films where advanced chemistry is used to control the surface properties of the films produced [2]. A wide range of polymers and production techniques are been used resulting in a great diversity in structure and function of separation membranes tailored to a wide variety of applications. Separation is usually described in terms of pore/solute size, pore/solute charge and dielectric effects, coupled with diffusion or convective flow. Occasionally, more complex partitioning and transport mechanisms are used, however, most synthetic membranes may be broadly described as polymer sheets containing micron to nanometre sized holes.

This is in stark contrast to the bewildering complexity of biological membranes. 30 % of the human genome codes for membrane proteins [3], and a typical mammalian cell membrane hosts several hundred lipid types [4]. Despite dramatic progress over the last decades in our understanding of the molecular basis for biological membrane transport (e.g. [5-7]), this complexity remains a major obstacle in our molecular understanding of how living cells maintain their integrity and perform their function [8].

One way leading to a better understanding of membranes and membrane transport is to focus on a few of its components and features. This understanding is crucial if we want to exploit – or mimic – nature’s tremendous capability for selective membrane transport. The term Biomimetic Membranes denotes the common denominator for such endeavours [9]. Recent examples of membrane biomimetics include low noise recording devices for ion channel research [10], free-standing triblock copolymer membranes [11, 12], enzyme-immobilization [13], and gas-extraction membranes [14].

In the development of biomimetic membranes it is important to know the morphological descriptors such as the amount and intrinsic properties of amphiphiles (lipidic or block coplymeric types) forming the membrane, the equilibrium thickness, and the coverage. Also important are the properties of interaction: the stability against mechanical perturbations (e.g. viscoelastic responses to changes in hydrostatic or osmotic pressure differences) [15, 16], the rate of regeneration (self healing) [17], the ease with which functional peptides or proteins can be adsorbed/incorporated [18] and, once incorporated, how proteins interact with the amphiphilic matrix [19]; and surface (e.g. electrostatic) energetics [20].

Perhaps the most challenging part of biomimetic membrane development is to understand the interaction between the membrane and its support – in particular when this support also is porous and thus can support mass transport across the membrane [21]. In Aquaporin’s case the biomimetic membrane with embedded aquaporins must support pressures up to 10 bar and allow a water flux > 100 l /m3 h. Therefore the development of the Aquaporin membrane™ is closely linked to the simultaneous development of suitable porous support materials.

  1. Rios, G.M., M.P. Belleville, and D. Paolucci-Jeanjean, Membrane engineering in biotechnology: quo vamus? Trends Biotechnol, 2007. 25(6): p. 242-6.
  2. Byrne, W., Reverse Osmosis. 2. ed. 2002, Littleton, CO: Tall Oaks Publishing Inc. 1-636.
  3. Bernsel, A. and G. Von Heijne, Improved membrane protein topology prediction by domain assignments. Protein Sci, 2005. 14(7): p. 1723-8.
  4. Dowhan, W., Molecular basis for membrane phospholipid diversity: why are there so many lipids? Annu Rev Biochem, 1997. 66: p. 199-232.
  5. Doyle, D.A., et al., The structure of the potassium channel: molecular basis of K+ conduction and selectivity. Science, 1998. 280: p. 69-77.
  6. Preston, G.M., et al., Appearance of water channels in Xenopus oocytes expressing red cell CHIP28 protein. Science, 1992. 256(5055): p. 385-7.
  7. Tajkhorshid, E., et al., Control of the selectivity of the aquaporin water channel family by global orientational tuning. Science, 2002. 296(5567): p. 525-30.
  8. Andersen, O.S., D.B. Sawyer, and R.E. Koeppe, II, Modulation of channel function by the host bilayer. Biomembrane Structure and Function, 1992: p. 227-244.
  9. Martin, D.K.e., Nanobiotechnology of Biomimetic Membranes. 2007, New York: Springer Verlag.
  10. Mayer, M., et al., Microfabricated teflon membranes for low-noise recordings of ion channels in planar lipid bilayers. Biophys J, 2003. 85(4): p. 2684-95.
  11. Nardin, C., M. Winterhalter, and W. Meier, Giant Free-Standing ABA Triblock Copolymer Membranes, Langmuir, 2000. 16: p. 7708-7712.
  12. Meier, W., C. Nardin, and M. Winterhalter, Reconstitution of Channel Proteins in (Polymerized) ABA Triblock Copolymer Membranes, Angew Chem Int Ed Engl, 2000. 39(24): p. 4599-4602.
  13. Trau, D. and R. Renneberg, Encapsulation of glucose oxidase microparticles within a nanoscale layer-by-layer film: immobilization and biosensor applications. Biosens Bioelectron, 2003. 18(12): p. 1491-9.
  14. Romero, J., et al., New hydrophobic membranes for contactor processes – applications to isothermal concentration of solutions. Desalination, 2006. 193: p. 280-285.
  15. Sackmann, E., Physical basis of trigger processes and membrane structures, in Biological Membranes, D. Chapman, Editor. 1984, Academic Press Inc., Ltd.: London. p. 105-143.
  16. Israelachvilli, J., ed. Intermolecular & Surface Forces. 1992, Academic Press: London.
  17. Grant, L.M. and F. Tiberg, Normal and lateral forces between lipid covered solids in solution: correlation with layer packing and structure. Biophys J, 2002. 82(3): p. 1373-85.
  18. Rossi, C. and J. Chopineau, Biomimetic tethered lipid membranes designed for membrane-protein interaction studies. Eur Biophys J, 2007. 36(8): p. 955-65.
  19. Nielsen, C., M. Goulian, and O.S. Andersen, Energetics of Inclusion-Induced Bilayer Deformations. Biophys. J., 1998. 74: p. 1966-1983.
  20. Lundbæk, J.A., A.M. Maer, and O.S. Andersen, Lipid bilayer electrostatic energy, curvature stress, and assembly of gramicidin channels. Biochemistry, 1997. 36: p. 5695-5701.
  21. Reimhult, E. and K. Kumar, Membrane biosensor platforms using nano- and microporous supports. Trends Biotechnol, 2008. 26(2): p. 82-9.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: