Skip to main content
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America logoLink to Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America
. 2006 Dec 15;103(52):19766–19770. doi: 10.1073/pnas.0605909103

Localized proton microcircuits at the biological membrane–water interface

Magnus Brändén *,†, Tor Sandén †, Peter Brzezinski *,‡, Jerker Widengren †
PMCID: PMC1750901  PMID: 17172452

Abstract

Cellular processes such as nerve conduction, energy metabolism, and import of nutrients into cells all depend on transport of ions across biological membranes through specialized membrane-spanning proteins. Understanding these processes at a molecular level requires mechanistic insights into the interaction between these proteins and the membrane itself. To explore the role of the membrane in ion translocation we used an approach based on fluorescence correlation spectroscopy. Specifically, we investigated exchange of protons between the water phase and the membrane surface, as well as diffusion of protons along membrane surfaces, at a single-molecule level. We show that the lipid head groups collectively act as a proton-collecting antenna, dramatically accelerating proton uptake from water to a membrane-anchored proton acceptor. Furthermore, the results show that proton transfer along the surface can be significantly faster than that between the lipid head groups and the surrounding water phase. Thus, ion translocation across membranes and between the different membrane protein components is a complex interplay between the proteins and the membrane itself, where the membrane acts as a proton-conducting link between membrane-spanning proton transporters.

Keywords: diffusion, fluorescence, membrane protein, pH, proton transfer


Energy metabolism in living organisms involves translocation of protons across biological membranes through specific membrane-spanning proton transporters, thereby generating a proton-motive force (Δp)

graphic file with name zpq05206-4485-m01.jpg

where Δψ is the electrical potential, R is the gas constant (J·K−1·mol−1), T is the absolute temperature (K), F is the Faraday constant (C mol−1), and ΔpH is the pH difference between the two bulk solutions on either side of the membrane. The proton-motive force is used, e.g., by ATP synthase to produce ATP. It originally was proposed that Δp only depends on the solution properties and that the membrane only acts as a passive barrier isolating the two compartments (1). Over the years, evidence has accumulated indicating that the scenario is more complicated and also that the membrane surface and the water layer near the surface play major roles in the process (for a recent review, see ref. 2). One important finding in this respect is the alkaliphilic bacteria, which live in environments having 2–3 units higher pH than that of the bacterial cytosol. Assuming a passive role of the membrane, these bacteria would in principle not be able to maintain a Δp large enough to account for their ATP production (3). To resolve this apparent paradox, the idea of a localized proton circuit along the membrane surface, originally proposed by Williams (4), has been exploited (2, 5–7) (see also ref. 8 for a theoretical analysis as well as refs. 9 and 10). According to this idea, protons ejected by a membrane-spanning proton transporter are transferred along the membrane to the proton acceptor (e.g., ATP synthase) faster than they are released to the bulk solution. Most likely, this process is facilitated by surface-bound protonatable groups, which conduct protons rapidly along the surface (8, 11–14). Furthermore, it has been proposed that the water layer near a membrane surface has a low dielectric permittivity, which gives rise to a potential barrier for ions (15). In addition to rapid localized proton conduction, these arrangements would make it possible to maintain a higher proton concentration at the membrane, near an exit channel of a proton transporter, relative to that in the bulk solution. Results from several studies indicate that the proton transfer along the membrane surface is indeed faster than the proton equilibration between the membrane surface, or membrane-incorporated proteins, and the bulk solution (16–19).

In the case of membrane-spanning proton transporters, a mechanism based on a specific design of the protein surface has been proposed to explain observations that, for some transporters such as bacteriorhodopsin (20) or cytochrome c oxidase (21, 22), proton uptake takes place at rates that are faster than that limited by proton diffusion in water (for review, see ref. 23). In these cases, the proton uptake has been proposed to be facilitated by “proton-collecting antennae,” composed of surface-accessible negatively charged and protonatable groups (13, 24, 25). Also, in photosynthetic reaction centers internal proton transfer has been found to be faster than proton equilibration between the protein and the water bulk solution (15). The crystal structures of proton transporters typically show that histidine (His) residues, surrounded by negatively charged aspartate (Asp) and glutamate (Glu) residues, are found around the entry points of proton-conducting pathways leading into the interior of these proteins (for review, see ref. 2). It has been proposed that the role of the His residues, which have pKa values close to the pH of the bulk aqueous phase, is to rapidly provide a proton to the proton-conducting pathway. The negatively charged Asp and Glu residues would facilitate protonation of the His residues. Thereby, an overall more rapidly occurring reprotonation of the His residues from the bulk aqueous phase could take place. Theoretical calculations have shown that if these negatively charged protonatable groups are located sufficiently close to each other (<10 Å), protons are transferred along the surface rather than being equilibrated with the bulk (12, 26). In other words, if a specific proton acceptor at the surface is surrounded by protonatable groups, its proton collision cross-section, and therefore its proton uptake rate can be expected to increase. However, the occurrence of proton-collecting antennae or localized proton circuits at the surface of biological membranes has not been directly demonstrated. To fully understand these phenomena, it is necessary to study the protonation kinetics at the level of individual surface proton acceptors/donors at physiologically relevant conditions and at thermodynamic equilibrium. In this study, we introduced a fluorescence correlation spectroscopy (FCS)-based approach to investigate the protonation dynamics (27, 28) at the surface of liposomes with well defined compositions. In each liposome, only one of the lipid head groups was covalently labeled with the fluorescent pH-sensitive dye fluorescein. With this liposome model system, the charge and the buffering capacity of the lipid head groups constituting the membrane surface could be controlled and modulated along with the solution properties.

Results and Discussion

The effect of the membrane composition on the protonation dynamics of the membrane-anchored single fluorescein probe was studied by using FCS. In the FCS measurements, the fluorescence fluctuations generated by protonation/deprotonation of the individual pH sensitive fluorescein molecules were monitored as the liposomes diffused through the small detection volume (1.5 fl). Thus, the recorded fluctuations in fluorescence directly reflected the proton exchange of the fluorophore with its immediate environment at equilibrium conditions (Fig. 1). Moreover, because of the low fluorophore concentrations used, buffer effects from the fluorophore molecules themselves could be neglected. Thus, this approach has great advantages as compared with conventional relaxation experiments where the response time of the fluorescent pH probe to the proton pulse depends not only on the immediate environment of the fluorophores but also on all other interacting proton-accepting groups of the system.

Fig. 1.

Fig. 1.

The confocal detection volume in an FCS measurement and the membrane model system of fluorescein-labeled liposomes. The excitation laser is strongly focused through a confocal microscope confining the detection volume to the focus of the laser (1.5 fl). The fluorescence emitted from fluorescein-labeled (Flu) liposomes diffusing through the confocal volume is collected by the microscope objective and detected by avalanche photodiodes. Rate constants k1 and k−1 are defined in Eqs. 2 and 3.

For freely diffusing fluorescein-labeled liposomes, the recorded FCS curves showed independent fluctuations in three different time regimes associated with (i) the diffusion rate constant (kD), i.e., the rate by which the liposome diffuses through the detection volume (1/kD = τD ≅ 1.2 ms); (ii) the relaxation rate (ktrip) for the singlet–triplet state transitions within the fluorescein molecules (1/ktrip = τtrip ≈ 1.5 μs); and (iii) the protonation relaxation rate (kprot). Given the small size of the liposomes (radius = 15 nm) in relation to the detection volume (radius ≅ 300 nm) and their mobility, the fluorescein-labeled lipid molecules enter and leave the detection volume by diffusion of the whole liposomes and not by diffusion of the fluorescein-labeled lipid molecules within the membranes of the liposomes themselves. Therefore, the changes in fluorescence attributable to diffusion of the lipid molecules can be neglected.

To investigate the proton-collecting antenna concept, we prepared liposomes composed of the lipid 1,2-dioleoylsn-glycero-3-[phospho-rac-(1-glycerol)] (DOPG), which has a head group that is negatively charged and protonatable with a pKa of ≈2. Fig. 2A shows FCS data obtained from measurements on fluorescein-labeled DOPG liposomes at four selected pH values. The amplitude of the protonation component reflects the extent of protonation and increases with the bulk proton concentration, [H+], whereas the time constant τprot = 1/kprot reflects the proton exchange relaxation time of the fluorescein molecules. As shown in Fig. 2A Inset, kprot is linearly dependent on [H+], which is consistent with proton transfer between the individual lipid head groups of the membrane surface being much faster than proton transfer from these lipid head groups to the bulk solution (compare proton-collecting antenna):

graphic file with name zpq05206-4485-m02.jpg

where k+1 is the apparent proton diffusion on-rate constant and k−1 is the off-rate constant. From the slope and the intercept of the fitted line with the ordinate, we obtained k+1 = 9.4 × 1012 s−1·M−1 and k−1 = 3.3 × 104 s−1, respectively. The pKa of the dye is obtained from −log(k−1/k+1), which gives a value of 8.5 for the anchored fluorescein molecule. This pKa value is equal to that determined from a static pH titration with a spectrofluorometer (data not shown). The corresponding parameters obtained for water-solubilized lipid fluorescein [N-(fluorescein-5-thiocarbamoyl)-1,2-dihexadecanoyl-sn-glycero-3-phosphoethanol-amine (fluorescein-DHPE)] were k+1 = 6.5 × 1010 s−1·M−1, k−1 = 2.5 × 104 s−1, yielding a pKa of 6.4 (data not shown). These values are the same as those obtained previously for free fluorescein in water (28). Thus, the membrane surface itself, composed of negatively charged DOPG head groups, acts to increase k+1 for the anchored fluorescein by a factor of 100 while keeping k−1 practically unaltered. A relatively large increase in k+1 also has been noted in the case of membrane transporters (for review, see ref. 23). Furthermore, these results are qualitatively consistent with those obtained previously in time-resolved kinetic measurements (29).

Fig. 2.

Fig. 2.

Protonation kinetics of the surface-anchored fluorescein as a function of the proton concentration. (A) FCS curves obtained from measurements on fluorescein-labeled DOPG liposomes at four different pH values. The shape of each curve is determined by fluctuations arising from diffusion of the liposome through the focal volume (τD ≈ 1.2 ms), the singlet–triplet state transitions within the fluorescein molecules (τtrip ≈ 1.5 μs), both of which are independent of pH, as well as from fluctuations attributable to protonation of the fluorescein molecule, which are pH-dependent. The amplitudes increase with [H+] because of an increase in the concentration of the protonated form of fluorescein. Also, the parts of the curves that correspond to protonation are shifted to the left as τprot = 1/kprot decreases with increasing [H+]. (Inset) kprot as a function of [H+], where the solid line is a fit of the data with Eq. 2, k+1 = 9.4 × 1012 s−1·M−1 and k−1 = 3.3 × 104 s−1. (B) Protonation kinetics of the surface-anchored fluorescein in the presence of a surface buffer (DOPA). The graph shows the protonation rate constant, kprot, of the fluorescein molecule as a function of [H+] obtained from measurements on fluorescein-labeled DOPG liposomes supplemented with 0%, 3%, 7%, and 10% of DOPA lipids (i.e., 0, 60, 140, and 200 DOPA lipids out of the average number of 2,000 lipids per liposome). The solid lines are fits of the data with Eq. 3. (Inset) kprot as a function of the number of DOPA lipids per liposome ([DOPA]) at pH = 8.6 ([H+] = 2.5 × 10−9).

Next, we investigated whether the increase in kprot of the membrane-anchored fluorescein molecule could be a consequence of the net negative charge of the membrane surface, which would attract protons and result in a higher proton concentration in the aqueous phase near the surface. We therefore repeated the same experiments with a liposome surface composed of 1,2-dioleoyl-sn-glycero-3-phosphocholine (DOPC) head groups, which are zwitterionic and protonatable (pKa ≈ 2, i.e., equal to that of DOPG head groups). Also in this case, k−1 was found to be unaltered, whereas k+1 was increased by a factor of 100 (data not shown), i.e., the behavior was the same as that observed for liposomes composed of DOPG. Thus, the results show that the increased apparent proton diffusion on-rate constant (k+1) is a result of an increase in the effective proton collision cross-section of the anchored fluorescein molecule and that proton transfer is rapid between the membrane surface protonatable groups irrespective of the surface charge. In other words, the results show that the surface protonatable groups (negatively charged or neutral) collectively act as a proton-collecting antenna for the anchored fluorescein molecule. Moreover, these observations also indicate that the prerequisite for a localized proton circuit is fulfilled, namely, that the proton transfer along the liposome surface is faster than proton exchange between the surface and the bulk aqueous phase.

To investigate the role of buffering protonatable groups (compare His residues at the surface of a proton transporter) in a proton-collecting antenna, we introduced 1,2-dioleoyl-sn-glycero-3-phosphate (DOPA) lipids into the DOPG liposomes. The DOPA lipid head groups have a pKa of 7.4 (determined from titration), which is close to the pH of the bulk solution in our experiments as well as to the pKa of the fluorescein dye molecules (≈8.5). Consequently, the liposomes containing DOPA harbor surface-localized protons that are in rapid equilibrium with the anchored fluorescein molecule. To model this scenario, Eq. 2 has to be extended to account for the equilibrium between the fluorescein molecule and the DOPA head groups in the liposomes. The dependence of the protonation rate constant, kprot, on the concentration of DOPA (here expressed as the number of DOPA lipid head groups per liposome) was fitted to Eq. 3 (28).

graphic file with name zpq05206-4485-m03.jpg

The first two terms of Eq. 3 are the same as those in Eq. 2, and the last term describes the proton exchange rate between the DOPA lipid head groups and the membrane-anchored fluorescein molecule. Ka is the acidity constant of DOPA, which was determined to be 10−7.4, and ks+ and ks− are the protonation on- and off-rate constants of fluorescein for its proton exchange with DOPA along the surface of the DOPG liposomes. As shown in Fig. 2B, the slope of kprot as a function of [H+] increases with [DOPA] (see Fig. 2B Inset), and a fit of the data to Eq. 3 gave ks+ ≅ 2 × 104 s−1 (liposome) and ks− ≅ 3 × 102 s−1 (liposome) [note that the units of [DOPA] are (#DOPA)·(liposome−1); see Eq. 3]. This observation clearly demonstrates that the proton-uptake rate to a proton acceptor (e.g., fluorescein) at a membrane surface can be accelerated by surface-bound protonatable groups. Because, as shown above, proton transfer along a liposome surface composed of low-pKa lipid head groups is fast, these high-pKa DOPA groups can be rapidly reprotonated from the bulk aqueous phase, analogous with the role of the His residues in the proton-collecting antennae typically found in proton transporters (see above). This role also has been discussed previously for the high-pKa head group of cardiolipin (30).

The diffusion coefficient for proton transfer along the membrane surface (Dsurface) can be estimated from the dependence of kprot on [DOPA] by using the relation (in a pH range where the DOPG head groups are unprotonated, pH ≫ 2):

graphic file with name zpq05206-4485-m04.jpg

where ν is the number of proton “hops” between the DOPA head groups and the anchored fluorescein molecule per unit time and l is the average length of a proton hop. We calculate Dsurface as follows. The number of proton hops per unit time is estimated from the rate constant for proton exchange along the surface between fluorescein and the DOPA head groups, i.e., ν = (ks+ + ks−)·[DOPA] ≅ 2 × 104·[DOPA] s−1. The surface area of the liposomes used in our study is on average ≈3 × 10−11 cm2. Assuming that each DOPA and fluorescein head group occupies an area of π(l/2)2, we obtain l2 ≅ 4 × 10−11·[DOPA]−1 cm2, which gives (Eq. 4) Dsurface ≅ 2 × 10−7 cm2·s−1.

It should be pointed out that the diffusion coefficient of lipid molecules within a pure lipid bilayer typically is smaller (31). Therefore, the exchange of protons can be expected to occur via collisions of fluorescein with DOPA only to a minor extent. Instead, migration of the proton along the surface of the DOPG head groups appears to be the dominating mechanism. The advantage of using the FCS approach for determining Dsurface is that the value can be obtained under equilibrium conditions. Because the rate of direct protonation of a surface group from the bulk solution decreases with increasing pH, the significance of direct proton transfer from a proton source to a proton sink along the surface increases with increased pH.

In conclusion, we have introduced an FCS-based approach to monitor local, unperturbed proton exchange at membrane surfaces. We foresee that this approach can be applied further to a broad range of investigations of membrane-associated ion exchange, also involving ions other than hydrogen. Our results show that the whole DOPG–liposome surface acts to enhance the protonation cross-section of the surface-anchored fluorescein, increasing its protonation rate by a factor of 100 (Fig. 3A). This result therefore demonstrates that proton-collecting antennae are likely to be important for the function of proton transporters. Furthermore, we show that the DOPA lipid head groups can store membrane-localized protons that are in rapid equilibrium with the fluorescein proton acceptor (Fig. 3B). A compatible scenario is found in proton transporters where His residues act as surface-localized buffers near an entry point of a proton-conducting pathway. After delivering a proton to the pathway, the His residue can be rapidly reprotonated from the bulk solution via a surrounding proton-collecting antenna composed of Asp and Glu residues (Fig. 3C). In addition, from the dependence of kprot on [DOPA], we calculated the diffusion coefficient of proton transfer along the membrane surface (Dsurface) to be 2 × 10−7 cm2·s−1. Even though Dsurface < Dwater = 9.3 × 10−5 cm2·s−1 (diffusion coefficient of proton transfer in water), our results show that if the density of surface-bound protonatable groups is such that it corresponds to a higher proton concentration at the surface than in the bulk solution, then the proton exchange rate of a surface group (fluorescein) with the surface can exceed that to the bulk solution.

Fig. 3.

Fig. 3.

Schematic illustration of the conclusions reached from this study. (A) The proton-collecting antenna effect with the protonatable DOPG lipid head groups are shown in yellow. The membrane-anchored fluorescein molecule (DHPE-FLU) is shown in green. The protonation rate of the lipid head groups is determined by the proton diffusion-limited on-rate constant (k+1 = 4.0 × 1010 s−1·M−1). The protonatable DOPG lipid head groups have a pKa of ≈2 and do not remain protonated in the measured pH range after proton uptake from the bulk solution. Because proton transfer between the head groups is rapid, the proton collision cross-section of the proton acceptor (fluorescein) is increased by the surrounding membrane surface to an apparent proton diffusion on-rate constant of 9.4 × 1012 s−1·M−1. (B) The same scenario as in A but with DOPA lipids (blue) introduced into the DOPG liposomes (the DOPA lipid head groups have a pKa of 7.4). (C) Illustration of a proton-collecting antenna in a proton transporter. The His residues (compare with DOPA lipid head groups of a membrane) supply a proton-conducting pathway, leading into the interior of the transporter, with protons. The surrounding Asp and Glu residues (compare with DOPG lipid head groups of a membrane) form a proton-collecting antenna, which enhances the protonation rate of the His residues. (D) Illustration of a localized proton circuit that has been proposed to couple oxidative phosphorylation to ATP synthesis, for example, in alkaliphilic bacteria. The estimated value for Dsurface (see Eq. 4) is ≈2 × 10−7 cm2·s−1.

Materials and Methods

Liposome Preparation.

The glycerophospholipids (3 × 10−5 mol) DOPG {1,2-dioleoyl-sn-glycero-3-[phospho-rac-(1-glycerol)]}, DOPC (1,2-dioleoyl-sn-glycero-3-phosphocholine), or a mixture of DOPG and DOPA (1,2-dioleoyl-sn-glycero-3-phosphate) (Avanti Polar Lipids, Alabaster, AL) were mixed with 1 × 10−10 mol of fluorescein-DHPE [N-(fluorescein-5-thiocarbamoyl)-1,2-dihexadecanoyl-sn-glycero-3-phosphoethanolamine)] from Invitrogen (Carlsbad, CA). The solvent, chloroform, was evaporated under a flow of nitrogen gas. The lipids then were dissolved in 4 ml of 0.15 M NaCl and shaken for 30 min with a vortex to form multilaminar liposomes. These liposomes then were sonicated, by using a tip sonicator, until the solution became clear and unilaminar liposomes had been formed. The liposome solution then was centrifuged for 30 min (10,000 × g) to remove residual multilaminar liposomes and metal particles originating from the tip sonicator. Estimated from their size (radius = 15 nm, determined from the diffusion time of the liposomes in the FCS experiments), each liposome contained ≈2,000 lipids. To ensure that each liposome contained only one fluorophore, the ratio of fluorescein-DHPE to nonfluorescent lipids was 1:30,000. The nonfluorescently labeled liposomes do not contribute to the signal in an FCS measurement.

FCS Measurements.

The sample was diluted with 0.15 M NaCl to a concentration of 5–20 nM of fluorescein-labeled liposomes, corresponding to 4–18 liposomes in the focal volume (1.5 fl). Uncouplers were added to make the vesicle membranes permeable to H+ and Na+ and, hence, to obtain the same pH inside and outside of the liposome. The solution was bubbled with CO2-free air to remove traces of CO2, and, during the measurements, CO2-free air was blown over the sample to prevent reentry of CO2 into the sample. The bulk pH was monitored during the entire experiment by using a pH electrode (Jenway, Dunmow, U.K.). The measurements were performed by using a home-built FCS instrument based on an inverted confocal microscope [argon ion laser (model 532-BS-A04; Melles-Griot, Carlsbad, CA, emitting at 488 nm, focal beam radius 0.3 μm), objective (Olympus ×60, N.A. 1.2), pinhole (diameter = 50 mm)]. Fluorescence detection was performed by using two avalanche photodiodes (SPCM-AQR-14 and -16; PerkinElmer, Wellesley, MA), the output of which were correlated by using a hardware correlator (model ALV-5000; ALV, Langen, Germany). The excitation power was kept constant (66 μW) throughout the FCS experiment, yielding constant relaxation parameters for the singlet–triplet state transition of the fluorescein molecule. These parameters as well as the diffusion time of the liposomes were found to be independent of pH and could be fixed in the fitting procedure of the FCS curves throughout the analysis. See ref. 32 for further details on the experimental set-up and fluorescence fluctuations analysis.

Acknowledgments

We thank Pia Ädelroth, Marilyn Gunner, Menachem Gutman, Armen Mulkidjanian, Esther Nachliel, and Alexei Stuchebrukhov for valuable discussions. This study was supported by grants from the Swedish Research Council, the Tryggers Foundation, the Åke Wibergs Foundation, and the Swedish Foundation for Strategic Research.

Abbreviations

FCS

fluorescence correlation spectroscopy

DOPG

1,2-dioleoyl-sn-glycero-3-[phospho-rac-(1-glycerol)]

DOPC

1,2-dioleoyl-sn-glycero-3-phosphocholine

DOPA

1,2-dioleoyl-sn-glycero-3-phosphate

fluorescein-DHPE

N-(fluorescein-5-thiocarbamoyl)-1,2-dihexadecanoyl-sn-glycero-3-phosphoethanolamine.

Footnotes

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

This article is a PNAS direct submission.

References

  • 1.Mitchell P. Nature. 1961;191:144–148. doi: 10.1038/191144a0. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Mulkidjanian AY, Heberle J, Cherepanov DA. Biochim Biophys Acta. 2006;1757:913–930. doi: 10.1016/j.bbabio.2006.02.015. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Sturr MG, Guffanti AA, Krulwich TA. J Bacteriol. 1994;176:3111–3116. doi: 10.1128/jb.176.11.3111-3116.1994. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Williams RJP. Biochim Biophys Acta. 1978;505:1–44. doi: 10.1016/0304-4173(78)90007-1. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Olsson K, Keis S, Morgan HW, Dimroth P, Cook GM. J Bacteriol. 2003;185:461–465. doi: 10.1128/JB.185.2.461-465.2003. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Mulkidjanian AY, Cherepanov DA, Heberle J, Junge W. Biochemistry (Moscow) 2005;70:251–256. doi: 10.1007/s10541-005-0108-1. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Mulkidjanian AY, Cherepanov DA. Photochem Photobiol Sci. 2006;5:577–587. doi: 10.1039/b516443e. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Georgievskii Y, Medvedev ES, Stuchebrukhov AA. Biophys J. 2002;82:2833–2846. doi: 10.1016/S0006-3495(02)75626-9. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Gutman M, Kotlyar AB, Borovok N, Nachliel E. Biochemistry. 1993;32:2942–2946. doi: 10.1021/bi00063a003. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Gutman M, Nachliel E, Moshiach S. Biochemistry. 1989;28:2936–2940. doi: 10.1021/bi00433a029. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Friedman R, Nachliel E, Gutman M. Biophys J. 2005;89:768–781. doi: 10.1529/biophysj.105.058917. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Friedman R, Nachliel E, Gutman M. Biochim Biophys Acta. 2005;1710:67–77. doi: 10.1016/j.bbabio.2005.09.005. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Marantz Y, Nachliel E, Aagaard A, Brzezinski P, Gutman M. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 1998;95:8590–8595. doi: 10.1073/pnas.95.15.8590. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Georgievskii Y, Medvedev ES, Stuchebrukhov AA. J Chem Phys. 2002;116:1692–1699. [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Gopta OA, Cherepanov DA, Junge W, Mulkidjanian AY. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 1999;96:13159–13164. doi: 10.1073/pnas.96.23.13159. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Heberle J, Riesle J, Thiedemann G, Oesterhelt D, Dencher NA. Nature. 1994;370:379–382. doi: 10.1038/370379a0. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Teissie J, Prats M, Soucaille P, Tocanne JF. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 1985;82:3217–3221. doi: 10.1073/pnas.82.10.3217. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Slevin CJ, Unwin PR. J Am Chem Soc. 2000;122:2597–2602. [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Heberle J. Biochim Biophys Acta. 2000;1458:135–147. doi: 10.1016/s0005-2728(00)00064-5. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Nachliel E, Gutman M, Kiryati S, Dencher NA. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 1996;93:10747–10752. doi: 10.1073/pnas.93.20.10747. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Faxén K, Gilderson G, Ädelroth P, Brzezinski P. Nature. 2005;437:286–289. doi: 10.1038/nature03921. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Brzezinski P, Ädelroth P. Curr Opin Struct Biol. 2006;16:465–472. doi: 10.1016/j.sbi.2006.06.012. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Ädelroth P, Brzezinski P. Biochim Biophys Acta. 2004;1655:102–115. doi: 10.1016/j.bbabio.2003.10.018. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Riesle J, Oesterhelt D, Dencher NA, Heberle J. Biochemistry. 1996;35:6635–6643. doi: 10.1021/bi9600456. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Checover S, Nachliel E, Dencher NA, Gutman M. Biochemistry. 1997;36:13919–13928. doi: 10.1021/bi9717542. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Sacks V, Marantz Y, Aagaard A, Checover S, Nachliel E, Gutman M. Biochim Biophys Acta-Bioenerg. 1998;1365:232–240. [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Widengren J, Rigler R. J Fluoresc. 1997;7:211–213. [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Widengren J, Terry B, Rigler R. Chem Phys. 1999;249:259–271. [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Gutman M, Nachliel E. Biochim Biophys Acta. 1990;1015:391–414. [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Haines TH, Dencher NA. FEBS Lett. 2002;528:35–39. doi: 10.1016/s0014-5793(02)03292-1. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Lindblom G, Orädd G, Filippov A. Chem Phys Lipids. 2006;141:179–184. doi: 10.1016/j.chemphyslip.2006.02.011. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Widengren J, Mets U, Rigler R. J Phys Chem. 1995;99:13368–13379. [Google Scholar]

Articles from Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America are provided here courtesy of National Academy of Sciences

RESOURCES