Survey
* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
Surface Characterization of Gram-Negative Bacteria and their Vesicles Using Fourier Transform Infrared Spectroscopy and Dynamic Light Scattering Sofia Carlsson Degree Thesis in Chemistry 30 ECTS Master’s level Report passed: 07 2012 Supervisors: Madeleine Ramstedt Abstract Gram-negative bacteria are known to produce vesicles, why and how is still relatively unknown. Gram-negative bacteria are widely studied but still there are large areas in the field covering the bacterial chemistry that are unknown. This study is a pilot study aimed to complement the studies on surface properties for Gram-negative bacteria and their vesicles. The study is focused on the bacteria Escherichia coli (E.coli). Differences and similarities between bacteria and vesicle surface characteristics and chemical composition are presented using Attenuated Total Reflectance Fourier Transformed Infrared Spectroscopy (ATR-FTIR) and Dynamic Light Scattering (DLS). There does not seem to be any direct correlation between bacteria and vesicles regarding the surface characteristics. However, this study provides interesting data regarding the production of vesicles and vesicle characteristics as well as information regarding the surface characteristics of bacteria. II List of abbreviations ε f (κa) η ATR D DLS DNA E.coli FTIR Ge HCl IR k LPS OM OMP OMV R SDS-PAGE T TEM Z ZnSe XPS U(E) the dielectric constant a function of the ratio between the radius of the particle and the thickness of the electrical double layer. The viscosity of the solution Attenuated total reflectance Translational diffusion coefficient Dynamic light scattering Deoxyribonucleic acid Escherichia coli Fourier transform infrared Germanium Hydrochloric acid Infrared spectroscopy Boltzmann constant Lipopolysaccharides Outer membrane Outer membrane protein Outer membrane vesicle Hydrodynamic radius of a particle (or molecule) Sodium dodecyl sulfate polyacrylamide gel electrophoresis Absolute temperature Transmission Electron Microscope Zeta potential Zinc selenide X-ray photoelectron spectroscopy Electrophoretic mobility III IV Table of contents Abstract .......................................................................................................................... I List of abbreviations .................................................................................................... III Table of contents ........................................................................................................... V Why study vesicles from Gram-negative bacteria? ....................................................... 1 Bacteria vs. vesicle......................................................................................................... 1 Gram-negative bacteria .............................................................................................. 1 Vesicles ...................................................................................................................... 2 Techniques used for analysis ......................................................................................... 4 Infrared (IR) spectroscopy ......................................................................................... 4 Fourier Transformed Infrared (FTIR) Spectroscopy ................................................. 5 Attenuated Total Reflectance (ATR) ......................................................................... 5 Microbial cells ........................................................................................................... 6 Dynamic light scattering, DLS .................................................................................. 6 Size measurement .................................................................................................. 6 Zeta potential measurements.................................................................................. 7 Method ........................................................................................................................... 9 Samples ...................................................................................................................... 9 Buffer preparation .................................................................................................... 10 Preparation of bacteria ............................................................................................. 10 Preparation of outer membrane vesicles .................................................................. 10 Sodium dodecyl sulfate polyacrylamideb gel electrophoresis (SDS-PAGE) ...... 10 DLS analysis ............................................................................................................ 10 ATR-FTIR spectroscopic analysis ........................................................................... 11 Results and discussion ................................................................................................. 11 Optimization of the method ..................................................................................... 11 DLS analyses ........................................................................................................... 14 ATR-FTIR spectroscopic analysis ........................................................................... 17 Other data ................................................................................................................. 23 SDS-PAGE .......................................................................................................... 24 X-ray photoelectron spectroscopy, XPS .............................................................. 24 Conclusions .................................................................................................................. 26 Acknowledgement ....................................................................................................... 26 Bibliography ................................................................................................................ 28 V VI Why study vesicles from Gram-negative bacteria? So far little is known about the outer membrane vesicles (OMV) emerging from the cell surface. Why are they produced, how do they interact and what are their characteristics? There are many theories and studies but so far few answers (1), (2), (3), (4), (5). This study tries to give some answers regarding the surface of vesicles compared to the surface of bacteria. Are there some similarities? Are the characteristics of vesicle surfaces consistent or random? And if similar to bacteria, can we use them to further explore the bacterial surface and its interaction with its surroundings? So why do we want to explore the surface of bacteria? Due to its direct contact with the external environment bacteria are in need of a cell surface that is adaptable to rapid changes in, for example, environmental components, osmotic pressure and nutrients. But it still needs to be strong and stable to survive different kinds of threats (1). This need combined with flexibility have developed unique cell surface properties where still much is unknown. A greater extent of knowledge could develop the usage of bacteria and enable the usage of bacterial vesicles, for example, in the delivery of different drugs to target cells (1). The focus of our research is to gain a greater knowledge of the characteristics of the bacterial surface in the purpose to reach a more comprehensive understanding of bacterial adhesion. Bacteria vs. vesicle Gram-negative bacteria A Gram-negative bacterium differs from a Gram-positive bacterium mainly when it comes to the outer membrane (OM) and the periplasm which are both missing in the Gram-positive bacteria. The OM consists of lipopolysaccharides (LPS), phospholipids and outer membrane proteins (OMPs). The phospholipids form a bilayer structure where the LPS are attached to the outer leaflet. This structure gives the OM a hydrophilic outer surface and a hydrophobic core. The OMPs forms hydrophilic pores that can act as a link, or channel, between the periplasm and the external environment (1). The periplasm is a macromolecular gel consisting of peptidoglycan and includes periplasmic proteins and other macromolecules. It has a high, fixed polyelectrolyte concentration which makes it isosmotic with the cytoplasmic membrane (1). The outline of Gram-Negative cell wall can be seen in Figure 1 (1). Figure 1. Schematic image of Gram-negative bacteria. 1 Bacteria are very small organisms with a size range in microns; the size varies between different species. If looking at the transmission electron microscope (TEM) image, Figure 2, it can be seen that E.coli mutant ∆waaG has a size of approximately 1.0-1.5µm. Furthermore, due to this small size, bacteria have a very high surface to volume ratio, approximately 100 000 times (6). The high surface to volume ratio indicates that the membranes of the bacteria is a large contributing factor to the dry mass of the bacteria and understanding this part of the cell should therefore contribute greatly, to the complete understanding of cellular function and -interaction. From previous studies it seems that bacterial size and shape of the cells as well as the buoyant density differ during the growth, they all seem to increase in the exponential phase. However, the zeta potential seems to be constant (7). This indication is reinforced if looking at E.coli bacteria in a TEM. Figure 2a shows an E.coli bacterium that probably is in the beginning of the exponential phase, prior to cell division. This can be compared to Figure 2b that shows a mutant of Pseudomonas aeruginosa that is just about to divide. a b Figure 2.TEM image of E.coli (a) and Pseudomonas aeruginosa (b). In the red circle in image (a) there is a bacterium in the exponential phase, prior to cell division. In the red circle in image (b) there is a bacterium in the exponential phase during cell division (8). Vesicles Gram-negative bacteria naturally produce OMVs; small closed bubbles released from the bacteria surface. They are suggested to be formed as a bulge arising from the outer membrane as can be seen in Figure 3 (2), (3). The surface of OMVs are suggested to consist of bacterial outer membrane including LPS and OMPs and it is proposed that they are filled with periplasmic components such as proteins, enzymes and toxins (3), (9). The full mechanism of vesicle production and its components are still not fully understood. In electron microscope they appear as spherical structures with a diameter of 50-250 nm depending on strain (2), (3). It is noteworthy that vesicles are only produced by live bacteria (3). 2 Figure 3. Formation of membrane vesicles. The purpose of vesicle production is still not fully understood although they seem to be used as transport vehicles for Gram-negative bacteria components to eukaryotic and prokaryotic cells in the surrounding environment of the bacteria (2). They are suggested to function as both a channel of waste handling as well as a delivery system. The range of components that the OMVs are suggested to transport is very broad including virulence factors, antimicrobial agents, DNA, toxins, proteins, antibiotics etc. (3). It seems the components transported can be either fully functional substances with a purpose and/or a target cell or waste material such as missfolded proteins (4). It also seems they can act as virulence factors, carrying substances that damage the target cell in different ways (3). One of the advantages suggested for vesicle production is the possibility to reach host cells located deep in tissues that cannot be reached by the bacteria themselves (2). Vesiculation seems to occur in various environments such as solid or liquid cultures, in biofilms, planktonic cultures as well as natural environments (2), (3), (4). This also includes infected tissues (5). Approximately 1 % of the OM materials in a culture of E.coli are vesicles (5). Interaction of Gram-negative OMVs with bacteria is suggested to occur by attachment to the membrane via adherence or fusion (5). After adherence the vesicles can be internalized into the host cell (5). For Gram-negative bacteria, this is quite a straight forward process that does not need complete reorganization of the outer membrane due to the fact that the OMVs are made of the outer membrane and consist of similar components as the bacterial cell wall (3). When fused into the membrane, the content of the vesicle can be delivered directly into the periplasm of the bacteria (3). The interaction mechanism between Gram-negative OMVs and Gram-positive bacteria is still unknown (3). Due to the fact that the mechanism, composition and production of vesicles are so unknown, there are a number of theories regarding vesiculation although they are not fully comprehensive and restricted to a few species of bacteria. Regarding surface characterization there has been studies on Pseudomonas aeruginosa suggesting that the growth phase of bacteria only affects the zeta 3 potential of the vesicles produced, giving a more negative zeta potential for vesicles when the bacteria are in the stationary phase. The size and the shape are suggested to remain constant (7). Studies, presented in this report, on E.coli vesicles will complement earlier findings in this field. Other interesting studies suggest that there are also differences in the inner content of the vesicles depending on when the vesicles are produced. For example, it is suggested that vesicles produced in the exponential growth phase have a higher amount of proteins (7). It was also suggested that the vesicles produced in the exponential phase have a higher density and are more translucent (7). The amount vesicle produced is suggested to be affected by the charge of the LPS of the bacteria (3), (9) and the rate is suggested to be dependent on the bacterial growth phase with a maximum rate during the late exponential phase (2), (4). All of these things are tested on other bacterial stains than E.coli and they will not be directly studied in the scope of this project. Moreover, early studies made the assumption that the surface charge of bacteria were homogeneously distributed over the surface although newer studies indicates that in reality there is a higher concentration of surface sites at the poles of the bacteria (10). If so, and if vesicles are produced as suggested than there will most likely be a difference in vesicle structure due to where on the bacterial surface it is spun off from. This topic is also outside the scope of this project. Techniques used for analysis Infrared (IR) spectroscopy Each atom and each molecule has a motional freedom of three i.e. in x, y and z direction. These motional freedoms can be divided into three different kinds of movements; translational, rotational and vibrational as can be seen in Table 1. The vibrational mode of motional freedom is often referred to as the normal mode of vibration (11), (12). Table 1. Motional freedoms of molecules. N stands for numbers of atoms (11), (12). Types of degrees freedom Translational Rotational Vibrational Total of Linear molecule 3 2 3N-5 3N Non-linear molecule 3 3 3N-6 3N Furthermore, the vibrational modes can then be divided into stretching (change in bond length) and bending modes (change in bond angle). The stretching can be divided into symmetric (in-phase) or asymmetric (out-of-phase) stretching. Moreover, the bending modes can be divided according to type of bending; scissoring, rocking, wagging and twisting. In addition, they can also be divided into in-plane (scissoring and rocking) or out-of-plane (wagging and twisting) (11), (12). The theory behind IR spectroscopy is based on the vibrational modes of motional freedom of the atoms in a molecule and how these vibrations will affect neighboring atoms through chemical bonds (12). However, not all vibrations give rise to an IR spectrum, the vibration has to create a change in the dipole moment of the molecule. The larger the change, the more intense will the absorption bands be (11). A spectrum is obtained by letting infrared radiation pass through the sample and then measuring which fraction of the incident radiation is absorbed at a specific energy (11). Due to the vibrations different substances will absorb different amount of 4 radiation in different regions giving rise to individual spectra that give us information regarding the bonds within a molecule (11). The main advantage of IR spectroscopy is that almost any sample in almost any state can be analyzed with different techniques (11). However, there is one special feature that the analyzed samples have to possess namely, the molecule has to have an electrical dipole moment that changes during vibration (11). An IR spectrum is obtained when a sample absorbs radiation in the region of infrared electromagnetic radiation (400-4000 cm-1 for mid-infrared). When the radiation is absorbed, a quantum mechanical transition occurs between two vibrational energy levels (the ground level and the first excited level for mid-infrared). The difference in energy is directly related to the frequency of the radiation (12). Fourier Transformed Infrared (FTIR) Spectroscopy The basic idea behind the FTIR spectroscopy is that the inference between two beams of radiation will yield an interferogram; a function of the change of path length between the two beams. This information is then transformed by a mathematical method called Fourier-transformation. The basic outline of the method can be seen in Figure 4. The main advantage of FTIR spectroscopy is that the sample is scanned with the whole spectral range at each time (12). Source Interferometer Sample Detector Amplifier Analog-to dogital converter Computer Figure 4. Basic outline for FTIR spectroscopy. The crucial part in this setup is the interferometer, where the Michelson interferometer is the most common one. It consists of two mirrors, one fixed and one moveable, and a beam-splitter. The two mirrors are positioned 90 ° angle from each other. The radiation hits the beam-splitter and then 50 % of the beam goes to each mirror. The mirrors reflect the beams back to the beam splitter where they recombine and interfere; this beam is called the transmitted beam and is the one detected by the FTIR spectroscopy (12), (11). The moving mirror will create an optical path difference between the two mirrors. If both mirrors are at the same position they will reflect both beams to the detector. During these conditions, the beams will be in phase when they hit the detector, creating a perfect constructive interference and the radiation signal will be at maximum intensity (12). If not at the same position, there will be an interference pattern created by the difference in optical path length between the two mirrors (11). During each scan the sample will absorb some radiation, lowering the intensity of the incident radiation (12). The second mirror is moved between each scan giving rise to a different interference pattern each time. It is these interference pattern that give rise to the raw data, also called interferogram, that are transformed by the mathematical algorithm Fourier transformation (12). Attenuated Total Reflectance (ATR) Different reflectance methods are used when the samples are too difficult to analyze using normal transmittance methods. For ATR the sample is placed on a crystal and then radiated with a beam of IR light. The method is based on total internal reflection i.e. an optical phenomenon where, if the incoming angle of radiation is bigger than the critical angle, all light is reflected. The critical angle is a function of the refractive indices of the crystal surfaces (11). A schematic image of the ATR setup can be seen in Figure 5. 5 The crystal used is of materials that have low solubility in water and have high reflective index. This includes for example zinc selenide (ZnSe) and Germanium (Ge) (11). Figure 5. Example of an ATR setup. Microbial cells When analyzing microbial cells like bacteria using IR spectroscopy, a large number of peaks can be expected. Proteins represent a major part of the bacterial mass and consequently some peaks can be overshadowed and the major peaks in the spectra will correspond to vibrations in proteins (11). Due to the large penetration depth of the IR beam, in the range of a few µm, the whole cell will be analyzed and consequently, FTIR spectroscopy cannot distinguish between the cell wall and the inner cell (11), (10). Dynamic light scattering, DLS Size measurement All particles in a liquid possess something called Brownian motion; a random motion created when the surrounding medium push the particles around in the solution. The speed of motion is directly proportional the particle size, the larger the particle the slower the speed (13). The speed of motions is also proportional to the temperature of the solution, as can be seen in Equation 1 (14). The size measurements of a particle in a solution starts with illumination of the solution with a laser and then the light will scatter due to the particles in the solution. How they scatter is dependent on the size and this is measured by measuring how fast the intensity of the scattered light fluctuates. Small particles will cause the intensity to change more often than larger particles. The velocity of Brownian motion for a particle is defined by a property called the translational diffusion coefficient (D) and it is correlated from the intensity variations of the scattered light by a correlation program (14). The D-value is then used to recalculate the hydrodynamic radius using Stoke-Einstein equation, as can be seen in Equation 1, to give a value of the size. Although, the size calculations are based on the particles hydrodynamic radius i.e. the size reported is for a sphere that has the same D-value as the particle. For a non-spherical particle the size measured will be either larger or smaller than the real size depending on the particle shape (14). This also gives that small changes in shape may alter the hydrodynamic size although not all changes are detected. For 6 example if the particle is rod-shaped then small changes in length will be detected but small changes in thickness will most likely not (14). Equation 1. The Stoke-Einstein equation; where D is the diffusion coefficient, k is the Boltzmann constant, T is the absolute temperature, η is the viscosity of the solution and R is the hydrodynamic radius of the particle (or macromolecule). When measuring size, the temperature needs to be stable so that the motions measured are Brownian motions and not flow motions in the sample created by temperature differences, and that the correct T is used in calculations (14). Furthermore, knowledge regarding the temperature also gives knowledge about the viscosity of the solution which is required in the hydrodynamic size measurements. The size measurement is also affected by the ionic strength of the solution i.e. the conductivity. In a low ionic strength solution, the double electric layer will be more extended than in high ionic strength (11). Another factor that can affect the hydrodynamic size is the structure of the surface of the particle; changes to the surface structure may alter the diffusion speed and therefore also alter the hydrodynamic size of the particle (14). Zeta potential measurements A charged particle in solution will have a layer of ions of opposite charge bounded to it, a so called Stern layer. Moreover, a second layer of ions are surrounding the particle, a so called diffuse layer. The zeta potential is a physical property of a particle in a suspension, and it is created in the slipping plane between the Stern layer and the diffuse layer as can be seen in Figure 6 (15). 7 Figure 6. Schematic representation of zeta potential. The zeta potential can indicate the degree of interaction between particles in a colloid system, and consequently the stability of the same system. A near neutral zeta value (-10 to 10 mV) or a zeta value of zero (isoelectric point) is an indication of an unstable system i.e. the particles will flocculate. In contrast to a strongly negative (lower than 30 mV) or strongly positive (higher than 30 mV) zeta potential that indicates a stable system i.e. the particles will repel each other and remain in solution (13), (15). It can also be used to investigate the surface charge of a particle since the zeta potential is dependent on the surface charge. However, the absolute zeta potential value will be lower than the surface charge, due to the ions in the double electrical layer (13), (15) (14). The zeta potential is measured by measuring the electrophoretic mobility of the particle. As the particle move the scattered light is phase shifted and this phase shift is proportional to the zeta potential of the particle. The data is correlated to zeta potential via the Henry equation as can be seen in Equation 2 (15). 8 Equation 2. Henrys equation (15). Several different factors, such as the strength of the electric field, the dielectric constant (ε) of the medium, the viscosity (ŋ) of the medium and the zeta potential (Z) of the particle, affect the electrophoretic mobility (U(E)) (13), (15). The Henry function f (κa) is a function of the ratio between the radius of the particle and the thickness of the electrical double layer. For aqueous media with moderate electrolyte concentration this value will be 1.5 and these conditions are referred to as the Smoluchowski approximation (15). The zeta potential is affected by several factors such as pH and conductivity of the medium. For pH effects it can be seen that a particle in an alkaline solution generally will have a more negative zeta potential and a particle in an acid solution will have a more positive zeta potential (13). Furthermore, earlier in this report it was described that the hydrodynamic size was affected by ionic strength. The same can be said regarding the zeta potential although, in this case it is the interaction between the particle surface and surrounding ions that can change the zeta potential (15). Method Samples Table 2. Bacteria strains used in this study. E.coli strain BW25113 RN103 RN104 RN105 RN106 RN107 BW25113/pMF19 E.coli strain without flagella BW25113 RN101 RN102 RN103 RN104 RN105 RN106 RN107 Strains for vesicle production BW25113 RN103 RN104 RN105 RN106 RN107 Modified gene WT ΔwaaF ΔwaaG ΔwaaL ΔwaaP ΔgalE WT-o-antigen Modified gene WT/flhD ΔwaaC ΔwaaE ΔwaaF/flhD ΔwaaG/fhlD ΔwaaL/flhD ΔwaaP/flhD ΔgalE/flhD Modified gene WT/flhD ΔwaaF/flhD ΔwaaG/fhlD ΔwaaL/flhD ΔwaaP/flhD ΔgalE/flhD 9 Core OS Lipid hldE waaC waaF waaG waaL waaP galE BW25113 Figure 7. LPS-differentiated E.coli mutations (8). Buffer preparation Acetate buffer with an ionic strength of 20 mM and a pH of 5.5 was prepared by mixing 1.6402 g of CH3COONa with 244 µl CH3COOH and then water was added to the final volume of 1000 ml. Phosphate buffer with an ionic strength of 20 mM and a pH of 7 was prepared by mixing 0.0.5531 g of NaH2PO4*2H20 with 1.8442 g of NaHPO4*12H2O and then water was added to the final volume of 1000 ml. Finally, the Tris buffer with an ionic strength of 20 mM and a pH of 8 was prepared by mixing 5.2048 g of TRISMA base with 2.1 ml of HCl and then water was added to the final volume of 1000 ml. Preparation of bacteria Bacteria were grown in 2 ml of ISO-SENSITEST liquid medium (Oxoid), collected by centrifugation at 10 000 rpm for 3 min and washed in 2 ml of an appropriate buffer. Samples were stored on ice and measured within 3 hours after preparation. Preparation of outer membrane vesicles Outer membrane vesicles (OMV) were prepared from E. coli BW25113 and mutants of this strain deficient in different steps of LPS biosynthesis. Additionally, these strains had a transposon insertion in flhD gene rendering them free of flagella. Such strains were chosen as flagella are known to contaminate OMV preparation. Bacteria were grown in 500 ml of ISO-SENSITEST liquid medium (Oxoid) containing kanamycin 50 µg/ml and collected by centrifugation at 5 000 rpm for 30 min at 4°C. Supernatant containing OMVs was collected and filtered through a sterile filter with pore size of 0.2 µm (Sarstedt). The filtrate was centrifuged in ultra centrifuge at 29 000 rpm for 3 hours at 4°C. The pellet was re-suspended in 600 µl 20 mM Tris-HCL, pH 8.0. Sodium dodecyl sulfate polyacrylamideb gel electrophoresis (SDS-PAGE) OMV samples were diluted in x2 loading buffer and separated for 1 h at 160V on 12% ready-made SDS-PAGE (Invitrogen). 15µl of a sample was loaded to each lane of the gel. After this the gel was stained with colloidal Coomassie stain overnight and destained in water. DLS analysis Particle size and zeta potential were measured at 25 °C using a Malvern Nano ZS zetasizer (16). Purified bacteria were diluted in Tris-, phosphate- or acetate buffer prior to analysis so that the suspension had an optical density of 0.5 at a wavelength of 600 nm. Purified OMV’s were diluted 10 times in Tris buffer For hydrodynamic size measurement the dynamic light scattering method was used and the raw data were converted by the Strokes-Einstein relationship. For zeta potential measurements laser Doppler Micro-electrophoresis method was used and the raw 10 data were converted by the Smoluchowski approximation. For both size and zeta measurements a clear disposable zeta cell was used during analysis. ATR-FTIR spectroscopic analysis The chemical composition was analyzed using a Bruker Vertex 80v spectrometer (17) with a 3 reflection ZnSe crystal plate placed on a MIRacle base optics assembly (18). Bacteria and OMV samples were centrifuged and the suspension removed. The pellet was then placed on the ATR crystal. For OMVs the samples had to be frozen with liquid nitrogen to enable transfer from the sample tube and placement on the crystal, this was due to the small amount of purified OMVs and also because of the slimy texture of the OMVs. Buffer spectra were also obtained and later subtracted from the other spectra. Results and discussion Optimization of the method The project started by developing an analysis method for bacteria as well as for vesicles. First of all, the lowest possible ionic strength of the buffer solution had to be established to ensure that the conductivity remained as low as possible but also to guarantee that the bacteria stay intact during the analysis. During some initial sample preparation there were indications of bacterial leakage for Pseudomonas aeruginosa at the ionic strength of 10 mM. The same leakage was not detected for E. coli indicating a more robust cell. Although to ensure that the most suitable ionic strength were used, tests with different ionic strength of phosphate buffer were performed. As can be seen in Figure 8, the zeta potential gets less negative the higher the ionic strength. This is due to that there are more ions in the solution that can screen the surface charge and therefore lowering the absolute zeta potential value. However, for ΔwaaC at ionic strength of 10 mM and 20 mM, it can be seen that the zeta potential is slightly higher at 20 mM indicating that there might be some instabilities in E.coli at 10 mM ionic strength. Analysis of viability did not show a large difference between 10 mM and 20 mM. However, for the rest of the measurements an ionic strength of 20 mM was used. Zeta potential (mV) 0 ‐10 10 mM 20 mM 50 mM 100 mM ‐20 ‐30 WaaC ‐40 WT ‐50 ‐60 ‐70 Ionic strength Figure 8. Variations in zeta potential, for ∆waaC and WT, due to alterations regarding the ionic strength of the phosphate buffer. Growth conditions for the bacteria were also optimized; we compared properties of bacteria grown on blood agar plate or in liquid media. Both size and zeta potential values showed that the media did not have substantial influence on the results although standard deviation values were somewhat larger for the bacteria grown on 11 3000 ‐55 Zeta potential (mV) Hydrodynamic size (d.nm) blood agar plate, as can be seen in Figure 9a and b, so the rest of the measurements were done with bacteria grown in liquid ISO-SENSITEST media. 2000 1000 0 waaC‐LB waaC‐blood Bacterial strain ‐57 waaC‐LB waaC‐blood ‐59 ‐61 ‐63 ‐65 Bacteria strain a b Figure 9. Effects from growing sample on different culture media (blood plate or liquid media), on hydrodynamic size (a) and on zeta potential (b). The vesicle production was a time-consuming process so to save time as well as sample the vesicles were stored in a freezer after DLS analysis and then used for IR after defrosting. To ensure that the vesicles stay stable during freezing, DLS analyses were preformed before and after freezing and the result can be seen in Figure 10a and b. There was some effect although it did not follow any trend and it was relatively small. The source of the difference could be from either the freezing process or the defrosting of the samples. The difference could also be due to uncertanties in the measuring method; giving a higher uncertanty of the absolut zeta potential value when the zeta potential was close to zero. Due to the small difference, the conclusion was made that the vesicle samples could be stored in the freezer. 350 0 ΔwaaF WT ‐2 250 200 Zeta potential (mV) Hydrodynamic size (d.nm) 300 Fresh sample 150 Defroste d sample 100 50 ‐4 Fresh sample ‐6 Defroste d sample ‐8 0 ΔwaaF WT Bacteria strain a ‐10 Bacteria strain b Figure 10. Effects on hydrodynamic size (a) and zeta potential (b) from freezing vesicle sample. Three different buffers were used with three different pH; one acid, one alkaline and one neutral solution. These buffers were used during analyses of bacteria to establish the most suitable buffer for analyses of bacteria and vesicles. As can been seen in Figure 11, bacteria in all buffers follow the same trend. Although bacteria in phosphate buffer tended to have the most negative zeta potential and bacteria in actetate buffer tended to have the least negative zeta potential. This result does not follow the expected trend were the most alkaline solution would have the most negative zeta potential, although, these differences seem to be mainly within the standard deviation. From these analyses only, it is difficult to make a conclusion on which buffer would be the most suitible for vesicle analysis as they only differ in zeta value within the same strain but follow the same trend between the strains. But we can make the conclusion that neither pH nor chemical composition of the buffer influence the zeta 12 potential of bacteria to any greater extend. It does not change the correlation between two strains in the same kind of buffer. Figure 11 can also give an indication of how different alteration to the LPS chains will effect the zeta potential. As can be seen there are two groups of bacteria, those with long LPS chain (∆waaL, ∆waaP, ∆galE and WT) and those with short LPS chain (∆waaC, ∆waaE, ∆waaF and ∆waaG). From the result there can be seen that there is no indication of effects from flagella, mutants with and without flagella seem to have the same zeta potential. There can also be seen that the mutants with long LPS chain have a lower zeta potential and vice versa. And if comparing the mutants with long LPS chain with WT there is only small differences in zeta potential indicating that small changes to the LPS chain do not effect the zeta potential to any greater extend. For the WT with additional o-antigen, the LPS chain is even longer since the oantigen is added to the LPS chain. Consequently, it will have a less negative zeta potential than WT as can be seen in Figure 11. Exacly how the different components in the LPS chain is affecting the zeta potential is not in the scope of this project, to establish that, further reseach will be needed. But from the data it can be concluded that larger changes in length of LPS influences the zeta potential. 0 Zeta potential (mV) ‐10 ‐20 ‐30 Acetate ‐40 Phosphate Tris ‐50 ‐60 ‐70 Bacteria strain Figure 11. Zeta potential for different bacteria strain, in three different buffers, each with different pH. From the OPLS-DA multivariate Scores plot of ATR-FTIR spectroscopic data of the bacterial strains (Figure 12a, 13a and 14a) it can be seen that the higher the pH the more clear is the separation of the samples, based on the type of LPS mutations. Instead of Scores plot, the model overview an be used to gain more comprehensive information about the separation. A model overview shows if there is any significant difference between the different components and if so, how many components that exhibit a significant differences between them. The more components that can be differentiated from each other, the better is the separation of the difference substances. From this result, there can be seen that the most suitable buffer for analysing bacteria and vesicles would be Tris buffer, due to that seven different components could be identified in the multivarite analysis, as can be seen in Figure 12b, 13b and 14b. Bacteria in acetate buffer and phosphate buffer are less easily separable, most likely due to the bacterial surface is protonated or changed, in the buffers of lower pH which makes the different strains more similar to each other and/or more different within the biological replicates of a particlular strain. One reasonable explanation would be that the phosphates and amines on protein residues and the LPS chain get protonated and/or that the cells release something to the surface. Since the tris buffer seemed to best separate the different samples this buffer 13 was chosen for the remaining work. From now on in this report all samples shown were prepared and alaysed in Tris buffer. 25 SofiaC_Bacteria_2pointBaseline_new5.M24 (OPLS/O2PLS-DA) R2Y(cum) Q2(cum) 20 0,9 15 WP____AB_1 WF____AB_1 WC____AB_1 WT____AB_1 10 5 to[1] 0,8 0,7 WE____AB_1 WP____AB_0 gE____AB_1 0 0,6 WG____AB_1 WG____AB_0 0,5 WL____AB_0 gE____AB_0 -5 -10 0,4 WE____AB_0 WF____AB_0 WC____AB_0 0,3 WT____AB_0 WL____AB_1 0,2 -15 0,1 0,0 -25 -0,1 -50 -40 -30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30 40 50 t[1] Comp[1]P -20 a b Figure 12. Scattered plot (a) and model overview (b) of bacteria in acetate buffer. Numbers of components = 1+1, Number of observations = 16, Number of classes = 6, R2X = 0,827, R2Y = 0,155, Q2 = -0,135. SofiaC_Bacteria_2pointBaseline_new5.M25 (OPLS/O2PLS-DA) R2Y(cum) Q2(cum) 0,9 20 0,8 WC____PB_0 WC____PB_1 WT____PB_0 0,7 10 0,6 t[2] WT____PB_1 WE____PB_0 WF____PB_0 WL____PB_0 WE____PB_1 0 gE____PB_1 WL____PB_1 gE____PB_0 -10 WG____PB_0 0,5 0,4 WP____PB_0 0,3 WF____PB_1 WG____PB_1 0,2 0,1 WP____PB_1 -20 0,0 -30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30 c 40 t[1] Comp[2]P -40 Comp[1]P -0,1 d Figure 13.Scattered plot (a) and model overview (b) of bacteria in phosphate buffer. Numbers of components = 2+0, Number of observations = 16, Number of classes = 8, R2X = 0,759, R2Y = 0,218, Q2 = -0,0716. SofiaC_Bacteria_2pointBaseline_new5.M23 (OPLS/O2PLS-DA) R2Y(cum) Q2(cum) 25 0,9 20 0,8 15 t[2] 5 0,7 WL____TB_0 gE____TB_0 10 WT____TB_1 WL____TB_1 WT____TB_0 gE____TB_1 0,6 0,5 WG____TB_0 WG____TB_1 WE____TB_1 WF____TB_1 0 0,4 WF____TB_0 WC____TB_1 WE____TB_0WC____TB_0 -5 0,3 0,2 -10 WP____TB_0 0,1 -15 0,0 WP____TB_1 -20 -15 -10 -5 0 t[1] 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 e Comp No. Comp[7]P -20 Comp[6]P -25 Comp[5]P -30 Comp[4]P -35 Comp[3]P -40 Comp[2]P -25 Comp[1]P -0,1 f Figure 14. Scattered score plot (s) and model overview (b) of bacteria in Tris buffer. Numbers of components = 7 + 2, Number of observations = 16, Number of classes = 8, R2X = 0,993, R2Y = 0,899, Q2 = -0,276. DLS analyses One hypothesis was that those E. coli mutants and their vesicles that have the shortest LPS chain would have a smaller hydrodynamic size. All sizes measured in this report are the hydrodynamic diameter of the particle and measured in nm. If Figure 15a and b is compared to Figure 7, it can be seen that the hydrodynamic size does not follow the expected trend for either vesicles or bacteria. For bacteria the 14 expected trend is followed with just two exception; WT and ∆galE, that were expected to be more similar to ∆waaL and ∆waaP. If looking at the size measurements for bacteria there can be seen that the hydrodynamic size is relatively large in the range of 4000 - 8000 nm although if comparing that to the size observed in the TEM images in Figure 2 (1000-1500 nm) it can be seen that the hydrodynamic size measured is much larger than the size of one bacterium. Indicating that the bacteria, in the suspention used in DLS measurement, are aggregating. There were also variation between data points for the bacterial samples, an additional indication of aggregation. For vesicles there is no similarity in trend compared to bacteria and they do not follow the expected trend at any point. For example, vesicles from ∆waaF/flhD and ∆waaG/flhD was expected to be smaller than the other mutants. These results indicate that the size of the vesicles do not correlate to the size of the bacterial aggregates Another observation regarding the size of vesicles is that the measurements show that they are larger than expected. As mentioned previously, earlier studies indicate that the vesicle size would be 50-250 nm, the result from this study indicate that vesicles from E.coli are more likely to have a hydrodynamic size in the range of 200-400 nm (unless they also aggregate as the bacterial cells do). Due to that the bacteria seem to have a higher tendency to cluster, fewer reliable DLS data points could be collected and therefore is there a higher uncertainty, regarding the hydrodynamic size values, for bacteria than for vesicle. Hydrodynamic size (d.nm) Hydrodynamic size (d.nm) 10000 8000 6000 4000 2000 0 Bacteria strain a 700 600 500 400 300 200 100 0 Bacterial strain b Figure 15. Trend in hydrodynamic size for bacteria (a) vs. vesicle (b). Samples are in Tris buffer. Our hypothesis regarding the zeta potential of bacteria compared to vesicles was that vesicles from one specific mutant would have the same zeta potential as the bacteria and/or that the zeta potential would follow the same trend as for bacteria. If comparing the bacteria and their vesicles regarding zeta potential, it can be seen that this hypothesis were proved incorrect and that there is no similarity in values or trend, as can be seen in Figure 16. Indicating that the zeta potential of the vesicle is not correlated to the zeta potential of the bacteria, unless aggregation affects the zeta potential. 15 0 Zeta potential (mV) ‐10 Δwaaf/fhlD ΔwaaG/fhlD ΔwaaL/flhD ΔwaaP/flhD WT/flhD ΔgalE/flhD ‐20 ‐30 ‐40 Bacteria ‐50 Vesicle ‐60 ‐70 Bacteria strain Figure 16. Trend in zeta potential for bacteria vs. vesicle. Samples are in Tris buffer. 500 400 Zeta potential (mV) Hydrodynamic size (d.nm) Moreover, from the Figures 15 and 16, it can be seen that vesicle hydrodynamic size and zeta potential seem to follow some kind of weak trend, namely that, a bigger vesicle will have a slightly more negative zeta potential (although it is within the standard deviation). However, this kind of trend can not be found regarding the hydrodynamic size and the zeta potential of bacterial aggregates, see Figure 15 and 16. Due to that both hydrodynamic size and zeta potential are affected by pH and ionic strength it could be expected that there would be some correlation between size and zeta potential of bacteria. For example, it could be expected that bacteria with lower zeta potential will have a higher tendency to aggregate, i.e. an opposite trend from the trend for vesicles. Another aspect that was needed to be investigated was how the zeta potential and the hydrodynamic size were affected by vesicles ageing. The results indicates that the vesicles gets smaller with time and that the zeta potential perhaps gets slightly more negative as can be seen in Figure 17 a and b. The change in hydrodynamic size can be due to different factors such as the vesicles shrink or that there is a change in surface structure and/or chemical composition. One explanation to the alternation in size could be that the vesicles rearrange into smaller vesicle. The change in zeta potential could also be due to rearrangement of the LPS chains. It could also be a result from concentration of the surface charge as a result of the shrinking of the vesicle. However, since the decrease in zeta potential is within the standard deviation it is very uncertain that it is decreasing, more measurements would be needed to see if this is a trend or not. 300 200 Day 1 100 Day 2 0 ΔwaaG ΔgalE Bacteria strain a 0 ‐5 ΔwaaG ΔgalE ‐10 Day 1 ‐15 Day 2 ‐20 ‐25 Bacteria strain b Figure 17. Effects on hydrodynamic size and zeta potential, of vesicle, after letting the sample grow old. Samples are in Tris buffer. 16 400 0 Zeta potential (mV) Hydrodynamic size (d.nm) There were also changes in zeta potential and hydrodynamic size of vesicles due to the growth state of bacteria. As can be seen in Figure 18a and b, bacteria in the exponential phase (7h) produce bigger and less negative vesicles. Compared to in the stationary phase (15h) where vesicles seem to be smaller but more negative. As mentioned, earlier studies on vesicles from Pseudomonas aeruginosa indicate that there is no change in size but in zeta potential with growth phase (3). For E.coli, both zeta and hydrodynamic size were found to be affected by the bacterial growth phase. Interesting is also that vesicles produced after 7 hours had a size larger than the earlier documented range of size of approximatly 50-250 nm and that vesicles produced after 15 hours were in that size range. Previously there does not seem to have been any studies of the size after specific time periods in the growth curve of E.coli. 300 200 7 h 100 15 h 0 ΔwaaF WT ‐5 WT ‐10 7 h ‐15 15 h ‐20 ‐25 Bacterial strain ΔwaaF Bacteria strain a b Figure 18. Variations on vesicle zeta potential and hydrodynamic size due to bacterial growth phase. Samples are in Tris buffer. 8000 Exp. 6000 4000 Late exp. 2000 Stat. 0 WT waaC Zeta potential (mV) Hydrodynamic size (n.dm) As can be seen in Figure 19 a and b there is no change in zeta potential of the bacteria during the growth curve although there are changes in size. Changes in size would be expected during a living organisms growth curve. They grow bigger in the exponential phase, which is the phase where they reproduce through cell division. The observed changes in hydrodynamic size can also be due to that bacteria have different tendency to aggregate in different state of its growth curve. And the non existing change in zeta potential is probably due to that the bacteria can regulate its surface charge to be constant, maybe by vesiculation. This regulation can not be performed by vesicles due to that they are not living organisms. 0 ‐10 ‐20 ‐30 ‐40 ‐50 ‐60 ‐70 WT waaC Exp. Late exp. Stat. Bacterial strain a b Figure 19. Variations on bacterial zeta potential and hydrodynamic size due to bacterial growth phase. Samples are in Tris buffer. Bacteria strain ATR-FTIR spectroscopic analysis IR spectra from both vesicles and bacteria can be seen in Figure 20. For all the IR spectra most peaks are overshadowed by the peaks from water, mainly at around 3300 cm-1, 2100 cm-1 and 1635 cm-1, indicating that the buffer spectra were 17 incompletely subtracted. Furthermore, there is also a region around 2900 cm-1 that corresponds to hydrocarbons mainly from lipids. Moreover, for E.coli bacteria, it can be seen a region between 1550 cm-1 and 1080 cm-1 that corresponds to vibrations from the proteins in the bacteria. Other components in this region will be overshadowed by the protein peaks, due to general abundance of proteins in bacteria. When comparing with the IR spectra of vesicles, the peaks corresponding to proteins are less intense or completely absent and there is another region in the area of 1100800 cm-1, most likely corresponding to carbohydrates, that is more intense. This region of peaks is most likely present in bacteria spectra as well but due to the large amount of peptides the carbohydrate peaks will be relatively small. Another possible contribution to these peaks might be DNA or RNA although, due to the high amount of sugar in the vesicles, the DNA and RNA vibrations are most likely less pronounced. If looking even closer at the region between 1100 cm-1 and 1200 cm-1, in Figure 21, it can be seen that there are four main peaks; three of them differ from the spectra of bacteria. It is the peak at 1027, 1105 cm-1 and 1152 cm-1, the peak at 1082 cm-1 is represented in both vesicle spectra and bacteria spectra and most likely correspond to phosphate and sugar vibrations. 0.8 3287 1634 1233 1546 Absorbance Units 0.4 0.6 1152 1456 1105 0.2 2111 1397 1082 0.0 1027 3500 3000 2500 2000 1500 1000 Wavenumber cm-1 Figure 20. ATR-FTIR spectra for bacteria (red) and vesicles (black). Numbers indicates wavenumber (cm-1) of the peaks. Samples are in Tris buffer. 18 Figure 21. FTIR spectra of different vesicles compared to a ∆waaL bacterium spectra (light blue). The different vesicles spectra are as followed; ∆galE (pink), ∆waaF (black), ∆waaG (red), ∆waaL (blue), ∆waaP (green) och WT (grey). Numbers indicates wavelength (cm-1) of the peaks. Samples are in Tris buffer. Comparisons of spectrum from IR analyses of bacteria and vesicles have been made using OPLS-DA multivariate analysis. The results are presented by Scores plots, Loadings plots and the original spectra. The three different presentations are all correlated. In the Loadings plot the areas at the positive side of the spectra will be more intensive in the samples on the positive side of the Scores plot and vice versa. Furthermore, there can also be seen which peaks in the original spectra that the peaks in the Loadings plot originates from. The P(corr) value in the Loadings plot is a value that indicates how much the samples differs at a specific wavenumber in the IR spectra. If the P(corr) value is strongly positive or negative then there is a strong difference between the samples. Conversely, if peak values in the Loadings plot are close to zero, there is a weak difference between the samples. Noteworthy, the data is total area normalized in OPUS; meaning that the intensity of the peaks is relative to each other and that changes in one area will alter the rest. This will have a consequence in the Loadings plot where big differences in small peaks will be overshadowed by small differences in large peak areas. Prior to the multivariate analysis, all spectra were baseline corrected and the buffer spectrum was subtracted from the other spectra. A comparison between bacteria and vesicle can be seen in Figures 22-25. The bacteria mutants are those without flagella due to that these are the ones that the vesicles originate from and it will also ensure that there is no influence from flagella on the results. In the Scores plot, Figure 22, a clear distinction between bacteria and vesicles can be seen. Comparing the Scores plot in Figure 22 to the Loadings plot in Figure 21, there can be seen that the peaks in the positive area of the Loadings plot corresponds to the samples marked black in the Scores plot, i.e. to the vesicle samples. Comparing the Loadings plot to the original spectra in Figure 24 and 25, there can be seen that the negative area, in the Loadings plot, correspond to the area marked black in the IR spectra. Comparing the Scores plot to the IR spectra, there can be seen that the area marked black in the IR spectra, is the peaks that differentiate vesicles from bacteria. The multivariate analysis result confirms the previous indications that the main component in the vesicle that differs from bacteria is the area of peaks in the region 19 1794 1792 1790 1788 1786 1784 1782 1780 1778 1776 1774 1772 1771 1769 1767 1765 1763 1761 1759 1757 1755 1753 1751 1749 1747 1745 1744 1742 1740 1738 1736 1734 1732 1730 1728 1726 1724 1722 1720 1718 1717 1715 1713 1711 1709 1707 1705 1703 1701 1699 1697 1695 1693 1691 1690 1688 1686 1684 1682 1680 1678 1676 1674 1672 1670 1668 1666 1664 1663 1661 1659 1657 1655 1653 1651 1649 1647 1645 1643 1641 1639 1637 1636 1634 1632 1630 1628 1626 1624 1622 1620 1618 1616 1614 1612 1610 1609 1607 1605 1603 1601 1599 1597 1595 1593 1591 1589 1587 1585 1583 1582 1580 1578 1576 1574 1572 1570 1568 1566 1564 1562 1560 1558 1556 1555 1553 1551 1549 1547 1545 1543 1541 1539 1537 1535 1533 1531 1529 1528 1526 1524 1522 1520 1518 1516 1514 1512 1510 1508 1506 1504 1502 1501 1499 1497 1495 1493 1491 1489 1487 1485 1483 1481 1479 1477 1475 1474 1472 1470 1468 1466 1464 1462 1460 1458 1456 1454 1452 1450 1448 1447 1445 1443 1441 1439 1437 1435 1433 1431 1429 1427 1425 1423 1421 1420 1418 1416 1414 1412 1410 1408 1406 1404 1402 1400 1398 1396 1394 1393 1391 1389 1387 1385 1383 1381 1379 1377 1375 1373 1371 1369 1367 1366 1364 1362 1360 1358 1356 1354 1352 1350 1348 1346 1344 1342 1340 1339 1337 1335 1333 1331 1329 1327 1325 1323 1321 1319 1317 1315 1313 1312 1310 1308 1306 1304 1302 1300 1298 1296 1294 1292 1290 1288 1286 1285 1283 1281 1279 1277 1275 1273 1271 1269 1267 1265 1263 1261 1259 1258 1256 1254 1252 1250 1248 1246 1244 1242 1240 1238 1236 1234 1232 1231 1229 1227 1225 1223 1221 1219 1217 1215 1213 1211 1209 1207 1205 1204 1202 1200 1198 1196 1194 1192 1190 1188 1186 1184 1182 1180 1178 1177 1175 1173 1171 1169 1167 1165 1163 1161 1159 1157 1155 1153 1151 1150 1148 1146 1144 1142 1140 1138 1136 1134 1132 1130 1128 1126 1124 1123 1121 1119 1117 1115 1113 1111 1109 1107 1105 1103 1101 1099 1097 1096 1094 1092 1090 1088 1086 1084 1082 1080 1078 1076 1074 1072 1070 1069 1067 1065 1063 1061 1059 1057 1055 1053 1051 1049 1047 1045 1043 1042 1040 1038 1036 1034 1032 1030 1028 1026 1024 1022 1020 1018 1016 1015 1013 1011 1009 1007 1005 1003 1001 999 997 995 993 991 989 988 986 984 982 980 978 p(corr)[1] t[2] around 1100-800 cm-1 (most likely from sugar) and the lack of peaks in the area of 1550 to 1080 cm-1 (most likely from proteins). From the differences in the positions in the Loadings plot for the peaks around 1637 cm-1 and 1549 cm-1 we can conclude that the water peak was not sufficiently subtracted. If it had been a peak at around 1637 cm-1 it would have represented a protein band and therefore followed the trend of the other protein bands. OPUS_Baseline_corrected_2pointbaseline_Areanorm2.M1 (PCA-X), Bacteria vs vesicle t[Comp. 1]/t[Comp. 2] Colored according to classes in M1 10 1,0 0,5 -1,0 WF_fD_TB_b gE_fD_TB_b 0 WF_fD_TB_b gE_fD_TB_b -10 -20 -35 -30 -25 -20 R2X[1] = 0,386934 -15 -10 0,4 -0,5 -5 0 5 R2X[2] = 0,287888 1653 1531 R2X[1] = 0,386934 10 15 20 -0,3 1313 -0,8 25 1610 1 2 30 WT_fD_TB_b 20 WT_fD_TB_b WG_ve_TB_b WF_ve_TB_b gE_ve_TB_b WT_ve_TB_b WP_ve_TB_b WP_fD_TB_b WG_fD_TB_b WL_fD_TB_b WL_fD_TB_b WG_fD_TB_b WL_ve_TB_b WP_fD_TB_b -30 t[1] 30 35 Figure 22. PCA Scattering plot, bacteria (red) vs. vesicle (black). Samples are in Tris buffer. Numbers of components = 5, Number of observations = 18, Number of classes = 2, R2X = 0,912, Q2 = 0,763. Ellipse: Hotelling T2 (0,95) 1687 OPUS_Baseline_corrected_2pointbaseline_Areanorm3.M1 (PCA-X), Bacteria vs vesicle p(corr)[Comp. 1] 0,9 1153 1028 1005 0,8 1187 -0,7 982 0,7 0,6 1431 1362 1335 0,3 1477 0,2 1105 0,1 -0,1 0,0 -0,2 -0,4 1173 -0,6 1454 1124 1088 1069 -0,9 1394 1238 Var ID (Primary) Figure 23. Loadings plot, bacteria (red) vs. vesicle (black). Numbers indicates wavelength (cm-1) of the peaks. Samples are in Tris buffer. SIMCAP+1201 2012053114:05:22(UTC+1) 20 1794 1792 1790 1788 1786 1784 1782 1780 1778 1776 1774 1772 1771 1769 1767 1765 1763 1761 1759 1757 1755 1753 1751 1749 1747 1745 1744 1742 1740 1738 1736 1734 1732 1730 1728 1726 1724 1722 1720 1718 1717 1715 1713 1711 1709 1707 1705 1703 1701 1699 1697 1695 1693 1691 1690 1688 1686 1684 1682 1680 1678 1676 1674 1672 1670 1668 1666 1664 1663 1661 1659 1657 1655 1653 1651 1649 1647 1645 1643 1641 1639 1637 1636 1634 1632 1630 1628 1626 1624 1622 1620 1618 1616 1614 1612 1610 1609 1607 1605 1603 1601 1599 1597 1595 1593 1591 1589 1587 1585 1583 1582 1580 1578 1576 1574 1572 1570 1568 1566 1564 1562 1560 1558 1556 1555 1553 1551 1549 1547 1545 1543 1541 1539 1537 1535 1533 1531 1529 1528 1526 1524 1522 1520 1518 1516 1514 1512 1510 1508 1506 1504 1502 1501 1499 1497 1495 1493 1491 1489 1487 1485 1483 1481 1479 1477 1475 1474 1472 1470 1468 1466 1464 1462 1460 1458 1456 1454 1452 1450 1448 1447 1445 1443 1441 1439 1437 1435 1433 1431 1429 1427 1425 1423 1421 1420 1418 1416 1414 1412 1410 1408 1406 1404 1402 1400 1398 1396 1394 1393 1391 1389 1387 1385 1383 1381 1379 1377 1375 1373 1371 1369 1367 1366 1364 1362 1360 1358 1356 1354 1352 1350 1348 1346 1344 1342 1340 1339 1337 1335 1333 1331 1329 1327 1325 1323 1321 1319 1317 1315 1313 1312 1310 1308 1306 1304 1302 1300 1298 1296 1294 1292 1290 1288 1286 1285 1283 1281 1279 1277 1275 1273 1271 1269 1267 1265 1263 1261 1259 1258 1256 1254 1252 1250 1248 1246 1244 1242 1240 1238 1236 1234 1232 1231 1229 1227 1225 1223 1221 1219 1217 1215 1213 1211 1209 1207 1205 1204 1202 1200 1198 1196 1194 1192 1190 1188 1186 1184 1182 1180 1178 1177 1175 1173 1171 1169 1167 1165 1163 1161 1159 1157 1155 1153 1151 1150 1148 1146 1144 1142 1140 1138 1136 1134 1132 1130 1128 1126 1124 1123 1121 1119 1117 1115 1113 1111 1109 1107 1105 1103 1101 1099 1097 1096 1094 1092 1090 1088 1086 1084 1082 1080 1078 1076 1074 1072 1070 1069 1067 1065 1063 1061 1059 1057 1055 1053 1051 1049 1047 1045 1043 1042 1040 1038 1036 1034 1032 1030 1028 1026 1024 1022 1020 1018 1016 1015 1013 1011 1009 1007 1005 1003 1001 999 997 995 993 991 989 988 986 984 982 980 978 1794 1792 1790 1788 1786 1784 1782 1780 1778 1776 1774 1772 1771 1769 1767 1765 1763 1761 1759 1757 1755 1753 1751 1749 1747 1745 1744 1742 1740 1738 1736 1734 1732 1730 1728 1726 1724 1722 1720 1718 1717 1715 1713 1711 1709 1707 1705 1703 1701 1699 1697 1695 1693 1691 1690 1688 1686 1684 1682 1680 1678 1676 1674 1672 1670 1668 1666 1664 1663 1661 1659 1657 1655 1653 1651 1649 1647 1645 1643 1641 1639 1637 1636 1634 1632 1630 1628 1626 1624 1622 1620 1618 1616 1614 1612 1610 1609 1607 1605 1603 1601 1599 1597 1595 1593 1591 1589 1587 1585 1583 1582 1580 1578 1576 1574 1572 1570 1568 1566 1564 1562 1560 1558 1556 1555 1553 1551 1549 1547 1545 1543 1541 1539 1537 1535 1533 1531 1529 1528 1526 1524 1522 1520 1518 1516 1514 1512 1510 1508 1506 1504 1502 1501 1499 1497 1495 1493 1491 1489 1487 1485 1483 1481 1479 1477 1475 1474 1472 1470 1468 1466 1464 1462 1460 1458 1456 1454 1452 1450 1448 1447 1445 1443 1441 1439 1437 1435 1433 1431 1429 1427 1425 1423 1421 1420 1418 1416 1414 1412 1410 1408 1406 1404 1402 1400 1398 1396 1394 1393 1391 1389 1387 1385 1383 1381 1379 1377 1375 1373 1371 1369 1367 1366 1364 1362 1360 1358 1356 1354 1352 1350 1348 1346 1344 1342 1340 1339 1337 1335 1333 1331 1329 1327 1325 1323 1321 1319 1317 1315 1313 1312 1310 1308 1306 1304 1302 1300 1298 1296 1294 1292 1290 1288 1286 1285 1283 1281 1279 1277 1275 1273 1271 1269 1267 1265 1263 1261 1259 1258 1256 1254 1252 1250 1248 1246 1244 1242 1240 1238 1236 1234 1232 1231 1229 1227 1225 1223 1221 1219 1217 1215 1213 1211 1209 1207 1205 1204 1202 1200 1198 1196 1194 1192 1190 1188 1186 1184 1182 1180 1178 1177 1175 1173 1171 1169 1167 1165 1163 1161 1159 1157 1155 1153 1151 1150 1148 1146 1144 1142 1140 1138 1136 1134 1132 1130 1128 1126 1124 1123 1121 1119 1117 1115 1113 1111 1109 1107 1105 1103 1101 1099 1097 1096 1094 1092 1090 1088 1086 1084 1082 1080 1078 1076 1074 1072 1070 1069 1067 1065 1063 1061 1059 1057 1055 1053 1051 1049 1047 1045 1043 1042 1040 1038 1036 1034 1032 1030 1028 1026 1024 1022 1020 1018 1016 1015 1013 1011 1009 1007 1005 1003 1001 999 997 995 993 991 989 988 986 984 982 980 978 OPUS_Baseline_corrected_2pointbaseline_Areanorm3.DS1 OPUS_Baseline_corrected_2pointbaseline_Areanorm Observation 0,55 0,56 0,04 1637 0,50 0,45 0,40 0,35 0,30 0,25 0,20 0,15 1549 0,10 1078 0,05 1456 1456 1394 0,06 1394 1229 1153 1026 0,08 1105 0,00 Var ID (Primary) Figure 24. IR spectra for bacteria (red) and vesicle (black) correlated to the loadings plot. The numbers represent the wavelength (cm-1) of the peaks. Samples are in Tris buffer. SIMCA-P+12.0.1-2012-05-3113:54:48(UTC+1) 1637 OPUS_Baseline_corrected_2pointbaseline_Areanorm3.DS1 OPUS_Baseline_corrected_2pointbaseline_Areanorm Observation 0,54 0,52 0,50 0,48 0,46 0,44 0,42 0,40 0,38 0,36 0,34 0,32 0,30 0,28 0,26 0,24 0,22 0,20 0,18 0,16 1549 0,14 0,12 1078 0,10 1229 1153 1026 1105 0,02 -0,02 0,00 Var ID (Primary) Figure 25. IR spectra for bacteria (red) and vesicle (black). The number represent wavelength (cm-1) of the peak. Samples are in Tris buffer. Moreover, a comparison between the different vesicles can be seen in Figure 26-28. Due to lack of replicates when analyzing vesicles by IR spectroscopy, the analysis of the data will have a higher degree of uncertainty. In the Scores plot, Figure 26, there can be seen a clear distinction between ∆waaG, ∆waaP and ∆waaL. Moreover, WT, ∆waaF and ∆galE seem to be quite similar and the multivariate analysis is not able to distinguish between them. However, there is a clear difference between the group of WT, ∆waaF and ∆galE compared to the other three vesicle sample. 21 If the Scores plot in Figure 26 is correlated to the Loadings plot in Figure 27, it can be seen that the peaks in the negative area of the loadings plot corresponds to the vesicle samples in the negative area of the Scores plot, i.e. to WT, ∆waaF, ∆waaG and ∆galE. And in the same way do the peaks in the positive area of the Loadings plot correspond to the vesicle sample in the positive area of the Scores plot, i.e. to ∆waaL and ∆waaP. And if then looking at the Loadings plot and correlate it to the IR spectra in Figure 28, there can be seen that the negative area, in the Loadings plot, correspond to the area marked red in the IR spectra and vice versa for the area marked black. If we correlate the Scores plot to the IR spectra, it can be seen that the area marked black in the IR spectra, is the peaks where ∆waaL and ∆waaP differs from ∆waaF, ∆galE, ∆waaG and WT. This result indicates that vesicles from different mutants differ in chemical composition. And that the difference noticeable is most likely due to different sugar components, which also is logical since vesicles derivates from the outer membrane of bacteria with differences in sugar content, as can be seen in table 3. OPUS_Baseline_corrected_2pointbaseline_Areanorm1.M2 (PCA -X), Vesicle comparision t[Comp. 1]/t[Comp. 2] Colored according to classes in M2 1 2 3 4 5 6 50 40 30 WP_ve_TB_b 20 10 t[2] WG_ve_TB_b 0 WL_ve_TB_b WT_ve_TB_b gE_ve_TB_b WF_ve_TB_b -10 -20 -30 -40 -50 -60 -50 -40 -30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 t[1] R2X[1] = 0,427427 R2X[2] = 0,370143 Ellipse: Hotelling T2 (0,95) Figure 26. The PCA Scores plot, vesicle comparison. Samples are in Tris buffer.The different vesicles spectra are as followed; ∆galE (pink), ∆waaF (black), ∆waaG (red), ∆waaL (blue), ∆waaP (green) och WT (orange). Numbers of components = 2, Number of observations = 6, Number of classes = 6, R2X = 0,798, Q2 = 0,343. 22 1794 1792 1790 1788 1786 1784 1782 1780 1778 1776 1774 1772 1771 1769 1767 1765 1763 1761 1759 1757 1755 1753 1751 1749 1747 1745 1744 1742 1740 1738 1736 1734 1732 1730 1728 1726 1724 1722 1720 1718 1717 1715 1713 1711 1709 1707 1705 1703 1701 1699 1697 1695 1693 1691 1690 1688 1686 1684 1682 1680 1678 1676 1674 1672 1670 1668 1666 1664 1663 1661 1659 1657 1655 1653 1651 1649 1647 1645 1643 1641 1639 1637 1636 1634 1632 1630 1628 1626 1624 1622 1620 1618 1616 1614 1612 1610 1609 1607 1605 1603 1601 1599 1597 1595 1593 1591 1589 1587 1585 1583 1582 1580 1578 1576 1574 1572 1570 1568 1566 1564 1562 1560 1558 1556 1555 1553 1551 1549 1547 1545 1543 1541 1539 1537 1535 1533 1531 1529 1528 1526 1524 1522 1520 1518 1516 1514 1512 1510 1508 1506 1504 1502 1501 1499 1497 1495 1493 1491 1489 1487 1485 1483 1481 1479 1477 1475 1474 1472 1470 1468 1466 1464 1462 1460 1458 1456 1454 1452 1450 1448 1447 1445 1443 1441 1439 1437 1435 1433 1431 1429 1427 1425 1423 1421 1420 1418 1416 1414 1412 1410 1408 1406 1404 1402 1400 1398 1396 1394 1393 1391 1389 1387 1385 1383 1381 1379 1377 1375 1373 1371 1369 1367 1366 1364 1362 1360 1358 1356 1354 1352 1350 1348 1346 1344 1342 1340 1339 1337 1335 1333 1331 1329 1327 1325 1323 1321 1319 1317 1315 1313 1312 1310 1308 1306 1304 1302 1300 1298 1296 1294 1292 1290 1288 1286 1285 1283 1281 1279 1277 1275 1273 1271 1269 1267 1265 1263 1261 1259 1258 1256 1254 1252 1250 1248 1246 1244 1242 1240 1238 1236 1234 1232 1231 1229 1227 1225 1223 1221 1219 1217 1215 1213 1211 1209 1207 1205 1204 1202 1200 1198 1196 1194 1192 1190 1188 1186 1184 1182 1180 1178 1177 1175 1173 1171 1169 1167 1165 1163 1161 1159 1157 1155 1153 1151 1150 1148 1146 1144 1142 1140 1138 1136 1134 1132 1130 1128 1126 1124 1123 1121 1119 1117 1115 1113 1111 1109 1107 1105 1103 1101 1099 1097 1096 1094 1092 1090 1088 1086 1084 1082 1080 1078 1076 1074 1072 1070 1069 1067 1065 1063 1061 1059 1057 1055 1053 1051 1049 1047 1045 1043 1042 1040 1038 1036 1034 1032 1030 1028 1026 1024 1022 1020 1018 1016 1015 1013 1011 1009 1007 1005 1003 1001 999 997 995 993 991 989 988 986 984 982 980 978 1792 1790 1788 1786 1784 1782 1780 1778 1776 1774 1772 1771 1769 1767 1765 1763 1761 1759 1757 1755 1753 1751 1749 1747 1745 1744 1742 1740 1738 1736 1734 1732 1730 1728 1726 1724 1722 1720 1718 1717 1715 1713 1711 1709 1707 1705 1703 1701 1699 1697 1695 1693 1691 1690 1688 1686 1684 1682 1680 1678 1676 1674 1672 1670 1668 1666 1664 1663 1661 1659 1657 1655 1653 1651 1649 1647 1645 1643 1641 1639 1637 1636 1634 1632 1630 1628 1626 1624 1622 1620 1618 1616 1614 1612 1610 1609 1607 1605 1603 1601 1599 1597 1595 1593 1591 1589 1587 1585 1583 1582 1580 1578 1576 1574 1572 1570 1568 1566 1564 1562 1560 1558 1556 1555 1553 1551 1549 1547 1545 1543 1541 1539 1537 1535 1533 1531 1529 1528 1526 1524 1522 1520 1518 1516 1514 1512 1510 1508 1506 1504 1502 1501 1499 1497 1495 1493 1491 1489 1487 1485 1483 1481 1479 1477 1475 1474 1472 1470 1468 1466 1464 1462 1460 1458 1456 1454 1452 1450 1448 1447 1445 1443 1441 1439 1437 1435 1433 1431 1429 1427 1425 1423 1421 1420 1418 1416 1414 1412 1410 1408 1406 1404 1402 1400 1398 1396 1394 1393 1391 1389 1387 1385 1383 1381 1379 1377 1375 1373 1371 1369 1367 1366 1364 1362 1360 1358 1356 1354 1352 1350 1348 1346 1344 1342 1340 1339 1337 1335 1333 1331 1329 1327 1325 1323 1321 1319 1317 1315 1313 1312 1310 1308 1306 1304 1302 1300 1298 1296 1294 1292 1290 1288 1286 1285 1283 1281 1279 1277 1275 1273 1271 1269 1267 1265 1263 1261 1259 1258 1256 1254 1252 1250 1248 1246 1244 1242 1240 1238 1236 1234 1232 1231 1229 1227 1225 1223 1221 1219 1217 1215 1213 1211 1209 1207 1205 1204 1202 1200 1198 1196 1194 1192 1190 1188 1186 1184 1182 1180 1178 1177 1175 1173 1171 1169 1167 1165 1163 1161 1159 1157 1155 1153 1151 1150 1148 1146 1144 1142 1140 1138 1136 1134 1132 1130 1128 1126 1124 1123 1121 1119 1117 1115 1113 1111 1109 1107 1105 1103 1101 1099 1097 1096 1094 1092 1090 1088 1086 1084 1082 1080 1078 1076 1074 1072 1070 1069 1067 1065 1063 1061 1059 1057 1055 1053 1051 1049 1047 1045 1043 1042 1040 1038 1036 1034 1032 1030 1028 1026 1024 1022 1020 1018 1016 1015 1013 1011 1009 1007 1005 1003 1001 999 997 995 993 991 989 988 986 984 982 980 978 p(corr)[1] OPUS_Baseline_corrected_2pointbaseline_Areanorm3.M2 (PCA-X), Vesicle comparision p(corr)[Comp. 1] 0,9 0,8 1792 1657 -0,9 0,55 1477 0,7 0,6 1043 1009 0,5 0,4 1443 0,3 0,2 0,1 1151 -0,1 0,0 -0,2 -0,3 -0,4 -0,5 -0,6 -0,7 -0,8 1566 1126 -1,0 1327 1296 1259 1192 1153 1092 1171 1067 R2X[1] = 0 427427 Var ID (Primary) Figure 27. Loadings plot, vesicle comparison. Black represents the vesicle on the positive side of the Scores plot and vice versa. Numbers indicates wavelength (cm-1) of the peaks in Tris buffer. OPUS_Baseline_corrected_2pointbaseline_Areanorm3.DS1 OPUS_Baseline_corrected_2pointbaseline_Areanorm Observation WF_ve_TB_br1_2404_BC_0 WG_ve_TB_br1_1505_BC_0 WL_ve_TB_br1_0705_BC_0 WP_ve_TB_br1_1105_BC_0 WT_ve_TB_br1_1005_BC_0 gE_ve_TB_br1_1105_BC_0 1639 0,50 0,45 0,40 0,35 0,30 0,25 0,20 0,15 0,10 1026 0,05 1103 1078 0,00 Var ID (Primary) SIMCAP+1201 2012053114:28:37(UTC+1) Figure 28. IR spectra correlated to the Loadings plot. Black represents the vesicle on the positive side of the Scores plot and vice versa. Numbers represent wavelength (cm-1) of the peaks. Samples are in Tris buffer. Other data Some other data were provided for comparison from other scientist in the research group. 23 SDS-PAGE A SDS-PAGE gel of vesicles from different bacteria mutants, see Figure 29, showed the most protein content in ΔwaaG (mainly at 45 kD, 30 kD and 20 kD), followed by ΔwaaF, ΔwaaP and galE (at 45 kD and 30 kD). There seem to be some proteins in ΔwaaL (at 45 kD) as well, although for WT the bands are too weak to tell if anything is there. The lack of bands in the gel for WT indicates that those vesicles have a lesser amount of proteins. What kind of proteins the different mutants release with their vesicles is still unknown although, there is no indication that they are solution proteins from cell leakage. If the proteins would have been from cell leakage there would have been a high amount of bands all over the gel. Moreover, it seems like most mutants have the same proteins i.e. the bands in the gel are at the same position, an indication of similar molecular weight. If this protein content is compared with the size of vesicles as can be seen in Figures 10 and 15b, there could be some indication of a correlation due to that the vesicles with the lowest amounts of proteins also are the once with the smallest hydrodynamic size. However, the data points are too few to make any clear conclusions or to make any correlations to the DLS or the IR spectroscopic data. 12% SDS‐PAGE of E.coli k 10 5 84 50 36 28 LadderWTΔwaaLΔwaaPΔgalEΔwaaGΔwaaF Figure 29. SDS-Page of E.coli vesicles. X-ray photoelectron spectroscopy, XPS If looking at the XPS data for the different bacteria mutants there can be seen that most bacteria have a high content of peptides and less of sugar and lipids. With one exception for ΔwaaE, were the lipid content is slightly higher than the peptide content. Why is unknown, however a possible explanation could be that the length and composition of the LPS chain is affecting the protein content. Furthermore, if comparing the vesicle sample with the bacterium sample of the same mutant, ∆waaL, there can be seen that the vesicle have a higher contents of lipids than bacterium and a low contents of both peptides and sugar. These data support the data extracted from the IR spectroscopic analyses regarding the low peptide contents in vesicles and the visible variation in sugar contents of vesicles. 24 Table 3. Multianalysis of C 1s XPS spectra, table shows the % contents of total carbon in the sample, Sample WT ΔwaaC ΔwaaE ΔwaaF ΔwaaG ΔwaaP ΔgalE ΔwaaL ΔwaaL/fhlD ves ΔwaaL Peptide 53 58 39 69 67 74 69 75 62 18 Lipid 27 32 49 19 18 10 11 7 18 63 Sugar 20 10 12 13 15 16 20 18 20 19 25 Conclusions For the DLS data there could be seen some very interesting trends regarding the factors affecting vesicles and the production of them. First of all, the results indicate that the composition of the LPS chain of bacteria is an important factor affecting the zeta potential. Furthermore, this study also indicates that there is no direct correlation between bacterial zeta potential and the vesicle zeta potential. However, there is indication that the growth phase of the bacteria is a factor that affects both the zeta potential and the hydrodynamic size of vesicles. Making them smaller and more negative the later in the growth they are collected. Vesicles are also affected by ageing, getting smaller and slightly more negative by time. However, since there is an uncertainty regarding the aggregation of the sample during DLS analyses all conclusions have a high degree of uncertainty and should be treated thereafter. Further analyses are needed to verify the results in this study. From the IR spectroscopic results a clear difference between vesicles and bacteria could be seen indicating a difference in chemical composition. However, the IR spectroscopic analyses have a higher degree of uncertainty than the DLS data due to a smaller amount of data points. Moreover, even though the intentions were to subtract the buffer, the results indicate an incomplete subtraction. So to gain more information regarding the components a complete subtraction is needed in the future. Analyzing the spectra in combination with XPS data, the differences is suggested to be from different amount of peptides and lipids, where a lower peptide contents in vesicle reveals the sugar peaks in the spectra. The main component in vesicle seems to be lipids although those peaks are still mostly overshadowed by peaks corresponding to water. Sugar peaks seem to differ indicating that the sugar components varies among the vesicles. What kind of differences there are and how big the differences are, is still unknown and further research is needed. To sum up, there does not seem to be any direct correlation between the zeta potential of vesicles and bacteria indicating that vesicles cannot be used as a model for the bacterial surface. However, there are interesting trends emerging from these results, which need to be further investigated. There are also a lot of questions arising from this pilot study. For example, what exactly does happen to vesicles after they are released? What are the factors that control the contents of the vesicles? If the surface characteristics are independent from the bacteria they originate from, what other factors affect the surface? These questions and more will hopefully be answered in future research. Acknowledgement A huge thank to my supervisor Madeleine Ramstedt for the help and support during the project. Always positive and encouraging, making it really nice working with you. Bringing out the best of each and everyone. You also manage something no one else has, to make me interested in research. Maybe I come back some day to find out why these “lovely” vesicles are acting like they do. And Olena Rzhepishevska (the red haired whirlwind/yrväder), what would I have done without you? Probably nothing, no samples – no work… András Gorzsás, thanks for making me understand multivariate analysis and for helping me when the IR spectrometer misbehaved. Peter Kallioniemi, you know I couldn’t have done this without you. Thanks for helping me understand the world of the living organisms and the world of English grammar. 26 27 Bibliography 1. N. Mozes, P. S. Handley, H. J. Busscher, P. G. Rouxhet. Microbial cell surface analysis. s.l. : VCH Publishers, 2001. 2. Bacterial outer membrane vesicles and the host‐pathogen interaction. Meta J. Kuhen, Nicole C. Kesty. s.l. : Cold Spring Harbour Laboratory Press, 2005, Genes & Development, Vol. 19, pp. 2645‐2655. 3. Gram‐negative outer membrane vesicles: beyond the cell surface. L. Mashburn‐Warren, R. J. C. McLean, M. Whiteley. Austin : Blacjwell Publishing Ltd, 2008, Geobiology, Vol. 6, pp. 214‐219. 4. Release of outer membrane vesicles by Gram‐negative bacteria is a novel envelope stress respons. Amanda J. McBroom, Meta J. Kuhen. 2, s.l. : Blackwell Publishing Ltd, 2007, Molecular Microbiology, Vol. 63, pp. 545‐558. 5. Virulence and immunomodulatory roles of bacterial outer membrane vesicles. Terri N. Ellis, Meta J. Kuhen. 1, s.l. : American Society for Microbiology, 2010, Microbiology and Molecular Biology Reviews, Vol. 74, pp. 81‐94. 6. Pineda, T. L. Bacterial species spectroscopic characterization by FTIR, normal RAMAN and surface enhanced RAMAN scatterinmg. Chemistry. s.l. : University of Puerto Rico, 2006. Final thesis . 7. Variation of physiochemical properties and cell association activity of membrane vesicles with growth phase in Pseudomonas aeruginosa. Y. Tashiro, S. Ichikawa, M.Shimizu, M. Toyofuku, N. Takaya, T.Nakajima‐Kambe, H. Uchiyama, N. Nomura. 11, s.l. : American Society for Microbiology, June 2010, Applied and Environmental Microbiology , Vol. 76, pp. 3732‐3739. 8. Ramstedt, Madeleine. Personal communication . 2012. 9. Effect of surface lipopolysaccaride on the nature of membrane vesicles liberated from the Gram‐negative bacterium Psedomonas aeruginosa. Trang T. Nguyen, Anu Saxena, Terry J. Beveridge. 5, s.l. : Japanese Society of Microscopy, 2003, Journal of Electron Microscope, Vol. 52, pp. 465‐469. 10. Characterization of the cell surface and cell wall chemistry of drinking water bacteria by combining XPS, FTIR, modeling and potentiometric titrations. J. J. Ojeda, M. E. Romeo‐ González, R. T. Bachmann, R. G.J. Edyvean, S. A. Banwart. s.l. : American Chemical Society, 2008, Langmuir, Vol. 24, pp. 4032‐4040. 11. Stuart, Barbara. Infrared spectroscopy: fundamentals and applications. s.l. : Wiley, 2004. 12. Lambert, Joseph B. Vibrational spectroscopy. Organic structural spectroscopy. 2007, 7. 13. Zeta potential measurment. Jefferey D. Clogston, Anil K. Patri. Part 2, s.l. : Springer Science , 2011, Methods in Molecular Biology, Vol. 697, pp. 63‐70. 28 14. Malvern. Dynamic light scattering: An introduction in 30 minutes. www.malvern.com. [Online] 2012. [Cited: June 3, 2012.] 15. —. Zeta potential; an introduction in 30 minutes. www.malvern.com. [Online] 2012. [Cited: June 3, 21012.] 16. www.malvern.com. Malvern . [Online] Malvern Instruments Ltd, 2012. 17. www.brukeroptics.com. Bruker optics. [Online] Bruker optics, 2012. [Cited: June 3, 2012.] http://www.brukeroptics.com/vertex80.html?&print=1%EF%BF%3FL%3D10. 18. www.piketech.com. Pike Tech. [Online] Pike Technologies, 2012. [Cited: June 3, 2012.] http://www.piketech.com/MIRacle‐TM‐Single‐Reflection‐ATR.html. 19. www.malvern.com. Malvern. [Online] Malvern Instruments Ltd, 2012. [Cited: June 3, 2012.] www.malvern.com/labeng/products/zetasizer/zetasizer_nano/zetasizer_nano_zs.htm. 29 Department of Chemistry S-901 87 Umeå, Sweden Telephone +46 90 786 50 00 Text telephone +46 90 786 59 00 www.umu.se