2008
DOI: 10.1504/ijnt.2008.019842
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Nanostructured phospholipid membranes

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
24
0

Year Published

2010
2010
2018
2018

Publication Types

Select...
7
1

Relationship

1
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 14 publications
(24 citation statements)
references
References 98 publications
0
24
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Both BAM (Figures a–a) and AFM (Figures a and a) imaging show that upon compression on ultrapure water the lipid-only mixtures and Infasurf laterally phase separate into thicker DPPC-rich condensed domains and a thinner LE phase enriched in the low T m saturated and/or unsaturated lipid(s) and surfactant proteins in the case of Infasurf. AFM analyses reveal apparent height differences ranging from 0.5 to 1 nm (depending on the force applied to the sample) between the condensed and LE monolayer phases that are a convolution of the true monolayer thickness and the phase compliance . The AFM tip–sample adhesion is larger over the LE versus condensed phase (Figures S2 and S3), reflecting a difference in the mechanical properties and possibly the charge (electrostatic forces) in the case of DPPC/POPG and Infasurf …”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…Both BAM (Figures a–a) and AFM (Figures a and a) imaging show that upon compression on ultrapure water the lipid-only mixtures and Infasurf laterally phase separate into thicker DPPC-rich condensed domains and a thinner LE phase enriched in the low T m saturated and/or unsaturated lipid(s) and surfactant proteins in the case of Infasurf. AFM analyses reveal apparent height differences ranging from 0.5 to 1 nm (depending on the force applied to the sample) between the condensed and LE monolayer phases that are a convolution of the true monolayer thickness and the phase compliance . The AFM tip–sample adhesion is larger over the LE versus condensed phase (Figures S2 and S3), reflecting a difference in the mechanical properties and possibly the charge (electrostatic forces) in the case of DPPC/POPG and Infasurf …”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…AFM analyses reveal apparent height differences ranging from 0.5 to 1 nm (depending on the force applied to the sample) between the condensed and LE monolayer phases that are a convolution of the true monolayer thickness and the phase compliance. 48 The AFM tip−sample adhesion is larger over the LE versus condensed phase (Figures S2 and S3), reflecting a difference in the mechanical properties and possibly the charge (electrostatic forces) in the case of DPPC/POPG and Infasurf. 49 Binary Lipid Mixtures.…”
Section: ■ Results and Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Vie et al 34 found a similar feature of the DPPC-DOPC mixed monolayer on a mica surface deposited at 37 mN m À1 . Moraille and Badia 35,36 reported the formation of stripe pattern structures of DPPC and 1,2-dilauroyl-sn-glycero-3-phosphocholine (DLPC) mixed monolayers and bilayers on a mica surface under different conditions. The height difference between the two domains in Fig.…”
Section: Monolayer Stability In Different Environmentsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Two traditional methods for the deposition of single or multiple lipid bilayers are Langmuir-Blodgett (Fig. 1c-d), 46,98,99 and Langmuir-Schaefer deposition. 100 Literature describing the use of these methods is abundant, and both methods are well-established.…”
Section: 21mentioning
confidence: 99%