CHEN90023 Lachlan Russell 389374

50
Department of Chemical and Bimolecular Engineering CHEN90023 Chemical Engineering Research Project Simulation of the Transmembrane Transport of Poly(amidoamine) Lachlan Russell 389374 Supervisors: Prof. Scales, Assoc. Prof. Li-Tang Yan

Transcript of CHEN90023 Lachlan Russell 389374

Page 1: CHEN90023 Lachlan Russell 389374

Department of Chemical and Bimolecular Engineering

CHEN90023 Chemical Engineering Research Project

Simulation of the Transmembrane Transport of Poly(amidoamine)

Lachlan Russell 389374

Supervisors: Prof. Scales, Assoc. Prof. Li-Tang Yan

Page 2: CHEN90023 Lachlan Russell 389374

ii

Summary The effect of modifications made to Yan and Yu’s existing dissipative particle dynamics (DPD) model

of an interacting generation five (G5) Poly(amidoamine) (PAMAM) dendrimer and a lipid bilayer were

examined.1, 2 The primitive bilayer was modified to include another double-chain lipid to simulate the

effect of ligand receptors on the transmembrane transport of dendrimer structures.

The structures formed by the interacting lipid bilayer and G5 dendrimer were analysed to see if they

resembled morphologies likely to be involved in clathrin-mediated endocytosis (CME). The effect of

changes to DPD soft-core repulsion forces acting between the dendrimer surface beads and the

receptor beads, as well as the internal dendrimer structure and the hydrophobic lipid tails, were

analysed.

It was found that self-assembly of the bilayer structure was not compromised when converting a

quarter of the simulated lipid molecules into receptor-simulating lipids. Binding and penetration were

found to be largely affected by the inclusion of an attractive interaction between receptors and ligands

coupled with changes to the magnitude of the repulsion between the bilayer lipid tails and the internal

structure of the dendrimer.

Encapsulation of the dendrimer by the bilayer was observed for a particular set of soft-core repulsion

parameters. The morphology closely matched that of a phagocytic mechanism. On the simulated

length scale such a result was unexpected. Further refinement of the model is required if CME, as it is

currently understood, is to be simulated and the unobservable dynamics conjectured. Due to

computational constraints, many of the results presented are preliminary in nature.

Page 3: CHEN90023 Lachlan Russell 389374

iii

Contents Summary .................................................................................................................................................................................... ii

1.0 Introduction ......................................................................................................................................................................... 4

2.0 Relevant Theory ................................................................................................................................................................... 5

2.1 Dissipative Particle Dynamics (DPD) ............................................................................................................................... 5

2.2 Dendrimers ..................................................................................................................................................................... 9

2.3 Lipid Bilayers ................................................................................................................................................................... 9

2.4 Transmembrane Transport: .......................................................................................................................................... 10

3.0 Literature Review ............................................................................................................................................................... 12

3.1 A Case for Dissipative Particle Dynamics (DPD) ............................................................................................................ 12

3.2 Using Dissipative Particle Dynamics to Model Transmembrane Transport .................................................................. 13

3.3 Ligand-Receptor Modelling ........................................................................................................................................... 14

3.4 Aim of Research ............................................................................................................................................................ 14

4.0 Materials and General Methodology ................................................................................................................................. 15

5.0 Results and Discussion ....................................................................................................................................................... 17

5.1 Self-Assembly of the Modified Lipid Bilayer.................................................................................................................. 17

5.2 Comparison with Yan and Yu’s Results ......................................................................................................................... 19

5.3 Simulation of the System with Dendrimer Heads modelled as Ligands ........................................................................ 21

5.3.1 Initial Attempts to Generate Clathrin-mediated Endocytic Morphology .............................................................. 21

5.3.2 Further Attempts to Generate Clathrin-mediated Endocytic Morphology ........................................................... 24

6.0 Further Discussion ............................................................................................................................................................. 28

6.1 Known Shortcomings of the Model............................................................................................................................... 28

6.2 Relationship of CME to Simulations .............................................................................................................................. 30

6.3 The Notable Shortage of Empirical Data ....................................................................................................................... 30

7.0 Conclusions ........................................................................................................................................................................ 32

8.0 Suggestions for Further Work ............................................................................................................................................ 33

8.1 Simple Immediate Revisions to the Current DPD Model .............................................................................................. 33

8.2 Extension of Results ...................................................................................................................................................... 33

9.0 References ......................................................................................................................................................................... 35

10.0 Appendices ...................................................................................................................................................................... 38

Appendix 1: Simulation Soft-core Repulsion Parameters ................................................................................................... 38

Appendix 2: MATLAB Code for Bilayer Bead Density Profile ............................................................................................... 41

Appendix 3: Asphericity ...................................................................................................................................................... 43

Appendix 4: Radius of Gyration .......................................................................................................................................... 45

Appendix 5: Penetrability .................................................................................................................................................... 47

Appendix 6: Confidence Bands ........................................................................................................................................... 49

Appendix 7: Intermediate Data ........................................................................................................................................... 50

Page 4: CHEN90023 Lachlan Russell 389374

4

1.0 Introduction Due to their complex nature, much of the science surrounding forces acting between nanoparticles is

not well understood.3 Dissipative particle dynamics (DPD) can be used to effectively model the

mesoscopic (10 nm - 100 mm) dynamics of interacting particles (refer to Figure 1).4, 5 DPD attempts

to incorporate the essence of many forces believed to be significant on this scale. The approximations

utilised by DPD methods allow for mesoscale simulation of many physical interactions that otherwise

could not be run at acceptable speeds.

Interactions between synthetic dendrimers and cellular membranes are significant due to the growing

use of dendrimers in medicine.6 These mesoscale interactions need to be studied in order to

synthesise drugs which allow for specific transmembrane transport whilst moderating cytotoxicity.7

DPD has been used to simulate dendritic particles interacting with lipid bilayers.1, 2, 8 Such simulations

can model the behaviour of different types of dendrimers reducing the need for costly drug testing by

synthesis and administration.

Figure 1: Schematic showing coarse-graining used to model the mesoscale. 9

Interactions between lipid bilayers and dendrimers have been studied extensively. However, modern

experimental techniques are currently unable to answer many fast-acting molecular-level mechanistic

questions.10 It is hoped, given DPD’s success with modelling other mesoscopic phenomena, that

simulations can provide additional insight until such a time when observational techniques are

sufficiently advanced to provide a more detailed description of interaction mechanisms and

morphology.

This project aims to extend previous DPD models of interacting lipid bilayers and dendrimers

developed by Yan and Yu.1, 2 Whilst amphiphilic lipid molecules comprise the bulk of cell membranes,

transport mechanisms often involve receptor proteins which are also present in the structure of the

membrane. The simulations performed incorporate primitive receptor-type molecules into Yan and

Yu’s simple bilayer. Such modifications have been utilised in other simulations however the effect of

such changes on the transmembrane transport of dendrimers such as poly(amidoamine) (PAMAM)

have yet to be rigorously studied.11-13 The effects of this change, along with the variation of DPD soft-

core repulsion parameters, was compared with Yan and Yu’s experiments, other simulation studies

and mechanisms proposed by biologists. Specifically, it was assessed whether clathrin-mediated

Page 5: CHEN90023 Lachlan Russell 389374

5

endocytic morphology could be replicated by these modifications as it has been shown that PAMAM

dendrimers and other particles of similar length scales are internalised via this mechanism.14, 15

The theory behind dissipative particle dynamics will first be introduced followed by a brief description

of dendrimers, cell membranes and transmembrane transport. Subsequently, a review of literature

concerning the use of computer simulation to model these transport processes will be presented. The

details of the modified DPD model will be covered and the results of simulations examined. Lastly,

conclusions and suggestions for further research will be presented.

2.0 Relevant Theory

2.1 Dissipative Particle Dynamics (DPD) Hoogerbrugge and Koelman developed a coarse-grained/beaded simulation method combining

features of molecular dynamics (MD) and lattice-gas automata. Dissipative particle dynamics

simulates more quickly than MD and is more flexible than lattice-gas automata schemes.16

A reformulation of DPD was developed and applied to the modelling of bilayers by Groot and his

colleagues.17, 18, 19

The simulation equations adopted by Yan and Yu are largely consistent with the aforementioned

theory developed by Groot; these equations were utilised for the sake of consistent simulation.1

Newton’s equations of motion are solved for interacting particles:

(1)

For simplicity, the mass of particles are set to equal 1 and hence force equals acceleration. Forces

act within a dimensionless cut-off radius (rc) of 1.

The bilayer-dendrimer DPD system is governed by five forces: Conservative, Dissipative, Random,

Bond and Electrostatic. The forces acting on particle i are summed at each timestep:

(2)

Conservative force:

(3)

(4), (5), (6)

Page 6: CHEN90023 Lachlan Russell 389374

6

aij denotes the soft-core repulsion parameter between particles i and j and is related to the

compressibility of interacting particles.9

The repulsion parameter can often be related to Flory-Huggins χ parameters in the instance where

water is used as the solvent:

𝝌𝒊𝒋 ≈𝜶𝒊𝒋−𝜶𝒊𝒊

𝟑.𝟐𝟕 (7)

• αii =25 is used in general DPD systems for all particle types. • αij will be larger than 25 for strong bead-bead repulsion interactions; it will be smaller than

25 where there exists reasons for attraction between two types of beads (e.g. due to electrostatic or entropic effects). For many of the cross terms, estimations are tested and refined based on qualitative knowledge and simulation results. A complete set of accurate Flory-Huggins χ-parameters often cannot be generated for complex systems with many types of beads present.

Dissipative and Random forces:

The dissipative force and the random force act as the heat sink and source, respectively. They are balanced to maintain a Boltzmann distribution and hence create a thermostat.

(8)

(9)

• wD and wR are r-dependent weight functions vanishing for r>rc. For simplicity they are chosen to be:

(10)

• vij=vi-vj and vi denotes the velocity of bead i. • ξij is a random number with zero mean and unit variance. • The noise amplitude, σ, is fixed at σ =3. • The forces are connected by Eq. (11).

(11)

• This thermostat conserves linear and angular momentum, resulting in a correct description of hydrodynamics.

Page 7: CHEN90023 Lachlan Russell 389374

7

Bond forces:

Dendrimers and lipids are constructed by tying beads together using Hookean springs with the

potential:

(12)

For the purposes of simulation:

• The spring constant is set to ks=64. • The unstretched length is set to l0=0.5rc. • Hence, the average bond length is fixed.

A three-body potential acting between adjacent bead triples models hydrocarbon chain stiffness in the lipids and dendrimer:

(13)

• The angle φ is defined by Eq. (14) where A, B denote the two bonds connecting beads i-1, i,

and i+1:

𝐜𝐨𝐬−𝟏𝑨∙𝑩

‖𝑨‖‖𝑩‖= 𝝓 (14)

• The bending constant ka=20 is used for both the lipid and dendrimer. • The preferred angle, φ0, is specified as 00 and 1200 for lipids and dendrimer respectively.

From these potentials, corresponding forces can be calculated.

Electrostatic force:18

A lattice grid is constructed, over which the electrostatic field is spread. There is a trade-off made

between correct representation and fast implementation of the field. Each charged bead has charge

proportional to:

(15)

This charge is calculated for every grid node within a radius Re =1.6rc of the bead and normalised so

that the sum of all proximal charged nodes is equal to the charge of the bead.

Page 8: CHEN90023 Lachlan Russell 389374

8

The electric field is solved according to Eq. 16:

(16)

• ε, εr and εo, denote the dielectric permittivity of the medium, the vacuum and the water respectively.

• �̅�𝑒,𝑛 is the averaged charge density. • ∇𝜑𝑛 is the electric gradient at node n. • Γ =13.87 is the coupling constant corresponding to the Bjerrum length of water at 300K.

At each timestep the electrostatic force on an ion can finally be determined by Eq. (17):

(17)

• Where qi is the charge of the ion.

Algorithm:

The velocity-Verlet algorithm is iterated for each bead at each timestep:

𝜆 = 0.65 has been found to reduce computational error accumulating whilst allowing for a relatively

large timestep to be chosen.

In the simulations, the radius of interaction, the bead mass, and the temperature are set such that

rc=m=kBT=1. A characteristic time scale can thus be defined:

(18)

Page 9: CHEN90023 Lachlan Russell 389374

9

2.2 Dendrimers Dendrimers are snowflake-like macromolecules (refer to Figure 2). They have defined controllable

structures of known physical, chemical and biological properties. Their associated monodispersity and

reproducibility make them ideal for biological applications as structure-activity relationships can be

more accurately studied.20 They are defined by their core structure and, as additional shells

(generations) are added, approximately double in size and number of surface functional groups. The

chemical backbone and surface terminal groups have a large effect on the biological properties of

dendrimers.

Figure 2: Poly(amidoamine) (PAMAM): Structure comprises of repetitively branched amide and amine functional groups.20

Dendrimers are increasingly being used for drug delivery as, when paired with pharmaceutically active

compounds, their defined properties can be used to improve drug specificity.21 Dendrimers are

capable of delivering drugs by many mechanisms. They can function as micelles which encapsulate

hydrophobic drugs; alternatively, the terminal functional groups of the dendrimer can covalently

attach to pharmaceutical agents.20 Dendrimers used for biomedical purposes usually have specific

ligands attached to their often cationic surface which interact with receptors on the surface of cellular

membranes.

2.3 Lipid Bilayers Phospholipids are surfactant molecules with a hydrophilic head and two hydrophobic tails which can

self-assemble to form bilayers (refer to Figure 3). Complex lipid bilayers encapsulate cells and many

important organelles.2

Figure 3: Bilayer sheet.22

Page 10: CHEN90023 Lachlan Russell 389374

10

2.4 Transmembrane Transport: The plasma membranes of cells serve to separate the intracellular cytoplasm from the extracellular

environment by controlling the transport of molecules across the membrane.23 Endocytosis is one of

many types of processes by which cells internalise molecules (refer to Figure 4). It involves the

deformation of the cell membrane and, subsequently, smaller membrane-bound carriers are

generated.24

Figure 4: Various methods of mass transport across cell membranes.25

Clathrin-mediated endocytosis (CME) is the chief receptor-mediated endocytic pathway.25 Hence, it is

the most widely studied endocytic mechanism. First observed by using electron microscopy, CME is

vital for such functions as nutrient uptake and receptor signalling.26 Mechanistically it involves

proteins with receptor sites binding to specific ligands, triggering the formation of ‘coated pits’ which

subsequently become fully enveloped by the cell (refer to Figure 5).24

Figure 5: Clathrin-mediated endocytosis requires specific ligand-receptor binding interactions.27

Page 11: CHEN90023 Lachlan Russell 389374

11

Different parameters affect the ability of nanoparticles to pass through the cellular membranes

including, size, shape and surface chemistry.6 Surface chemistry strongly affects the interactions

between nanoparticles and cells.24 Nonspecific binding forces caused by nanoparticle characteristics

such as cationic charge and roughness can also promote cellular uptake in conjuction with ligand-

receptor interactions.27 Consequently, it is believed that multiple transmembrane transport

mechanisms can work simultaneously (refer to Figure 6).6

Figure 6: Receptor-mediated uptake with additional nonspecific binding forces.27

Page 12: CHEN90023 Lachlan Russell 389374

12

3.0 Literature Review In recent years, multiple studies have modelled nanoparticle lipid bilayer interactions using computer

simulation.7 This is because, despite extensive research in this area, experimentalists have largely

failed to elucidate the kinetic evolutions of these interactions. Dissipative particle dynamics (DPD) and

other coarse-graining techniques have been used widely to attempt to model these processes. Many

of these studies have concerned themselves with the effects of nanoparticle shape, size and surface

chemistry on the internalisation process.7 Few have concerned themselves with seeking to replicate

the true complexity of cell membranes instead modelling them simply as lipid bilayer sheets. Lately,

attempts have been made to model these membranes in increasingly representative ways. The effect

of the inclusion of ligand-receptor type molecules on a simulated bilayer-dendrimer system requires

further study in the wake of recent developments.12, 13, 28, 29

3.1 A Case for Dissipative Particle Dynamics (DPD) At the nanoscale, interfacial forces dominate interactions. These include van der Waals, electrostatic,

depletion, hydration and hydrophobic forces.24 Compared with atomistic models which seek to

incorporate much of the complexity of modern physics, DPD utilises a different force potential

between interacting beads. In atomistic models, hard-core potentials such as Lennard–Jones (L–J)

potential, which incorporates van der Waals attraction and Pauli exclusion forces are used. In DPD

models, a soft-core conservative force is used.9 This soft-core repulsion is important as hard-core

modelling causes a ‘caging’ effect, where atoms undergo multiple collisions before any transport

occurs.18 Hence, models using soft repulsive spheres allow for the use of larger timesteps and length

scales.

Figure 7: Schematic illustrating the hard-core nature of Lennard–Jones potential and the soft-core nature of DPD inter-particle potential.9

The DPD model attempts to compensate for missing physics by incorporating a dissipative force to

account for viscous effects; the molecular level randomness, which usually manifests as Brownian

motion, is modelled by the random force.9

Both DPD and MD methods can produce correct equilibrium distributions of polymer chains. However,

MD simulations do not include hydrodynamic interactions. Conversely, DPD is able to correctly

simulate compressible Navier-Stokes behaviour.30, 31 This result is important at the mesoscale. It is

currently possible to simulate novel scenarios of small dendrimers interacting with simple lipid bilayers

using atomistic MD models; however, in order to generate meaningful results at greater length and

time scales, coarse-graining is required.7 Coarse-graining enables significant speeding up of

simulations of interacting membranes and particles orders of magnitude larger.22, 32

Page 13: CHEN90023 Lachlan Russell 389374

13

The advantages and disadvantages of other coarse-graining techniques have been discussed at

length.33 Groot and Madden argue that what is chiefly required of a mesoscale physics model is that

it can reproduce thermodynamic properties on the relevant length scale. Namely, if the solubilities,

liquid compressibilities and the shape of interfaces are correct, then the model correctly represents

the physical system for the given length scale.4 Well-conditioned DPD simulations have been shown

to pass such tests.4

3.2 Using Dissipative Particle Dynamics to Model Transmembrane Transport The fundamentals and technical subtleties of DPD are well established.4, 18, 19, 34 Traditionally DPD has

been used to model polymer-colloid systems where robust experimental results abound.4, 30, 34

Shilcock and Lipowsky were able to formulate self-assembling planar bilayers with experimentally

consistent density profiles and lateral stress distributions using the DPD model.22 These models have

been shown to describe the phase behaviour of phospholipids with accuracy.33, 35

Following the successful development of thermodynamically robust self-assembling bilayers many

have attempted to study their interactions with nanoscale particles. The modelling of the

nanoparticle-bilayer interactions have typically involved the use of the polyamidoamine (PAMAM),

which is the most commonly used dendrimer in biomedical applications, and a simple bilayer

comprised entirely of dipalmitoylphosphatidylcholine (DPPC).21 In addition to DPD, a variety of coarse-

grained and atomistic simulation models have been used for this purpose.10, 13, 36, 37 Yan and Yu used

the bilayer developed by Shilcock and Lipowsky to model interactions with cationic G5 PAMAM

dendrimers. The effect on morphology caused by changes to the soft-core repulsion parameters,

especially those concerning the outer-dendrimer hydrophilic components and the inner-dendrimer

hydrophobic components, was analysed extensively.2

Cationic dendrimers are known to be cytotoxic.37, 38 By introducing controlled surface tension into the

bilayer model, Yan and Yu were able to observe holes forming on the bilayer surface on interaction

with PAMAM dendrimers consistent with experimentally observed phenomena.1 They were

subsequently able to control the soft-core interaction parameters of the lipids used in the bilayer to

modify their shape factor (𝜈

𝛼𝑙< 1) to instead form vesicles of various sizes and surface tensions and

again interact these with PAMAM dendrimers.8 An attempt to better model the endocytic process was

incorporated by Guo, Mao and Yan.39 Canham-Helfrich theory was applied to incorporate contact and

membrane bending energies.40

Figure 8: DPD simulated endocytosis with incorporated membrane elasticity forces.39

Page 14: CHEN90023 Lachlan Russell 389374

14

3.3 Ligand-Receptor Modelling The use of DPD to model endocytosis is still in its infancy. Until recently, the simplicity of the simulated

bilayers was such that meaningful comparisons to cell membranes were tenuous. Most transport

across cell membranes occurs with the involvement of receptor proteins. Very little work has been

attempted to model clathrin-mediated endocytosis using simulations as it can be difficult to

incorporate changes to the bilayer that do not compromise its self-assembling properties. Attempts

to circumvent this problem have been made by modifying the surface of interacting dendrimers to

have a proportion of surface beads exhibit a greater affinity for the bilayer.13 More direct attempts

modelled ligand-receptor interactions by embedding symmetrical plug-like receptors into a bilayer

and interacting them with spherical molecules with uniformly anchored ligand sites. CME mechanisms

resembling those proposed by biologists were generated.28 Another strategy involved the

incorporation of another type of lipid into the bilayer structure with a ligand-receptor headgroup. This

method preserved self-assembly.11-13

The addition of ligands to the model has been approached in a variety of ways. Yang and Ma model

their interacting particle as a single large bead which interacts with ligand receptors according to a

modified Lennard–Jones potential in order to incorporate the attractive force expected between

ligands and receptors.29 Other studies have all used different models to incorporate ligands into

simulations.11, 12, 29, 41 While many of these studies produce interesting findings they all fail to model

the interacting particle as anything more than solid polyhedrons or spheres.

3.4 Aim of Research The aim of this study is to introduce a receptor-simulating double-chain lipid into the bilayer and

interact this modified bilayer with more complex particles such as PAMAM dendrimers. It has been

shown that PAMAM dendrimers are internalised primarily through clathrin-mediated endocytosis.14,

15 It is hypothesised that these structural changes to the bilayer combined with the balancing of soft-

core repulsion parameters can induce clathrin-mediated endocytic (CME) morphology. In order to test

this hypothesis a self-assembling bilayer must first be able to be generated. The stability of the DPD

model will be evaluated on comparing with Yan and Yu’s previous simulations.1, 2 Only then can it be

determined if structures resembling CME can be generated with or without the additional refinement

of some soft-core repulsion parameters. Any such refinements should be justifiable either with

empirical data or, less ideally, using qualitative arguments. Depending on the strength of these

justifications the hypothesis may be able to be supported. Consequently, it could be argued that the

simulation results might describe currently unobservable dynamics. If so, the model or its derivatives

may be able to assist in the future development of new dendrimers for drug delivery.

Page 15: CHEN90023 Lachlan Russell 389374

15

4.0 Materials and General Methodology The DPD simulation was constructed using interacting coarse-grained molecules largely consistent

with previous work by Yan and Yu.1

The lipid bilayer was constructed by creating a coarse-grained representation of

dipalmitoylphosphatidylcholine, the phospholipid commonly used to study lipid bilayers. DPPC

consists of a phosphate group, a simple organic molecule choline and two palmitic acid chains.

Figure 9: Dipalmitoylphosphatidylcholine.17

The simulation model of DPPC is consists of a hydrophilic head with charge +1 (green), a hydrophilic

head with charge -1 (purple) a head without charge (blue) and a hydrophobic tail group (cyan). The

separation between the beads was set to 0.5rc.

Figure 10: Bead model of DPPC.1

Another type of lipid was introduced into the bilayer structure.11, 12 Primitive receptor-simulating

double-chain lipids were created using a similar structure consisting of two uncharged hydrophilic

heads (orange), another uncharged head (blue) and a hydrophobic tail group (cyan). The separation

between the beads was set to 0.5rc.

Figure 11: Bead model of primitive receptor-simulating double-chain lipid.

For each of the double-chained lipids introduced into the simulation box (approximately 2360 in total)

a random number generator gave the lipid a 25% chance of being a receptor-simulating double-chain

lipid (refer to Further Discussion). The DPD simulation was allowed to run in an aqueous environment

until a steady bilayer structure self-assembled.

Page 16: CHEN90023 Lachlan Russell 389374

16

A single G5 PAMAM dendrimer was subsequently introduced into the simulation box above the

bilayer. For illustrative purposes, the coarse-grained representation of a G1 PAMAM dendrimer is

depicted in Figure 12.

Figure 12: Bead model of G1 PAMAM dendrimer.1

The yellow beads represent the hydrophobic inner amine and amide functional groups and are

uncharged. The red beads represent the hydrophilic surface amine functional groups and carry a

charge of +1. The separation between the beads was set to 0.5rc.

Consistent with Yan and Yu’s modelling, counterions were also included in the simulation.2

Each simulation was run for more than 105 timesteps of length Δt=0.02τ in order to ensure accurate

temperature control. The approximate area per lipid in a tensionless DPPC membrane is 0.64 nm2.

From this, the cut-off radius (rc) can be estimated to be approximately 0.7 nm. The time unit (τ) can

be related to physical time by known inplane lipid diffusion coefficients. Experiments have shown this

value to be approximately 5 μm2/s. Relating this to Yan and Yu’s previous work τ≈7.7ns and, hence,

105 time steps equates to approximately 15 μs.2 Similarly, most of the soft-core repulsion parameters

used, (refer to Appendix 1: Table 4), were compiled by Yan and Yu from the literature and, in the

absence of sources, refined through qualitative arguments and iterative simulation.1 The introduction

of the new receptor-simulating lipids required additional interaction parameters to be generated. The

effect of varying some of these parameters, both new and old, was studied in order to attempt to

build a model that successfully simulated a bilayer-dendrimer system interacting in a way that

mimicked proposed clathrin-mediated endocytic mechanisms (refer to Results and Discussion).

The Fortran code used to perform these DPD simulations has been made available (refer also to

Theory: Dissipative Particle Dynamics (DPD)). Similarly, the MATLAB programs written to perform

subsequent analysis of binary output from these programs can be found in the appendices.

Page 17: CHEN90023 Lachlan Russell 389374

17

5.0 Results and Discussion

5.1 Self-Assembly of the Modified Lipid Bilayer In an attempt to ensure self-assembly and an even distribution of receptors on the surface of the

bilayer; parameters for the new receptor beads were set such that their affinity for the other

headgroup beads was equivalent to their affinity for one another (α=25). As per other headgroup

beads, the receptor beads were designed to be similarly repelled by the hydrophobic lipid chains

(α=40).1 So as to achieve the slight protrusion of these receptors above the bilayer (refer to Figures 5,

6) receptor beads were given smaller repulsion parameters than other headgroup beads to govern

their interactions with water (α=15) (refer to Appendix 1: Table 5).

Consistent with expectations, for these carefully selected soft-core repulsion parameters, the

introduction of the new lipid molecule had no effect on the self-assembling property of the bilayer. It

was observed that an even surface distribution of this new coarse-grained molecule was achieved

(refer to Figure 13). The total lipid density was determined to be 1.47𝑟𝑐2=0.72 nm2 approximately 13%

greater than Yan and Yu’s literature value of 0.64 nm2.1 This minor difference was due to a change to

the ‘target lipid density’ input variable in the code used to simulate the self-assembly of the bilayer.

The simulation box is continuous in the sense that beads cannot leave the box and are simply

transported to the other side if they move across a boundary. The targeted density is achieved by the

coded insertion or removal of more lipids once the bilayer structure is relatively stable. Simulation of

the steady-state self-assembly of a bilayer required significant computer processing. This minor

change to the ‘target lipid density’ was performed at the request of a colleague due to limited

computing resources in order to test the effect of such a change on the stability of the bilayer

structure. This increase in density lead to slightly less exposure of the lipid tails when compared to the

surfaces originally constructed by Yan and Yu.1, 2 This deviation was partially offset by the slight

protrusion of receptor beads into the water phase.

Figure 13: Self-assembling bilayer produced with 1:3 ratio of receptor-simulating double-chain lipids and DPPC lipids.

Page 18: CHEN90023 Lachlan Russell 389374

18

Figure 14: Bilayer bead density by displacement from bilayer beads’ average z-coordinate (refer to Appendix 2).

As illustrated by Figure 14, consistent with the DPD model, total bead density (solvent included) was

centered on 3 beads/nm3.17 The density distribution for the bilayer beads was largely consistent with

previous studies with expected deviation arising from the 1:3 ratio of receptor-simulating double-

chain lipids and DPPC lipids.1, 22 The paired receptor beads protruded approximately 0.4 nm further

into the water than the two topmost combined headbeads on the DPPC lipids (refer to Figures 10,11).

Due to computational constraints it was not possible to revise the receptor-water interactions, lipid-

receptor split and lipid density to be consistent with literature (refer to Suggestions for Further Work).

Page 19: CHEN90023 Lachlan Russell 389374

19

5.2 Comparison with Yan and Yu’s Results To further test the stability of the modified DPD model, attempts were made to replicate results from

Yan and Yu’s previous studies.1, 2 The affinity of all lipid headgroup beads for the external dendrimer

beads and the internal dendrimer beads were set to αRL=15 and αTU=28 respectively, consistent with

Yan and Yu’s soft-core interaction parameters (refer to Appendix 1: Table 6).

After 105 timesteps (approximately 15 μs), a contrasting structure was generated:

Figure 15: Comparison of dendrimer penetration after 15 μs. Note that the counterions are not shown in both figures; however, their presence is incorporated into both models consistently.

Due to the presence of the receptor-simulating lipid in the bilayer structure, this simulation is subtly

different to Yan and Yu’s previous work. Figure 15 depicts a bilayer structure which is less planar, with

lipids capable of migrating onto the surface of the dendrimer; this was unexpected. The reasons for

these discrepancies require further investigation. However, it is worth noting that the bending of the

bilayer reduced as the simulation progressed and the migration of lipids onto the dendrimer was

observed by Yan and Yu in another simulation which used the same soft-repulsion parameters.2 This

finding potentially highlights the effect of DPD’s random force on simulations. The simulated

dendrimer was also slightly more spherical, with the asphericity calculated to be As=0.033 compared

with Yan and Yu’s figure centred on As=0.055 (refer to Appendix 3); the magnitude of this variation

was deemed not to be significant given the dynamic nature of the system. Importantly, the structure

of the simulated dendrimer was considerably more open in the modified system with the radius of

gyration equal to Rg=3.8 nm compared with Rg=2.7 nm (refer to Appendix 4). The magnitude of this

deviance was unexpected. The most likely causes of this deviation are unintentional changes from

historical soft-core repulsion parameters that govern the simulation environment of the dendrimer

equilibrating in water prior to being introduced into the simulation box with the lipid bilayer.

Table 1: Soft-core repulsion parameters governing isolated dendrimer-water system.

Solvent Bead (0) Surface Dendrimer Bead

(+1)

Internal Dendrimer Bead

(0)

Solvent Bead (0) 25 25 60 Surface Dendrimer Bead (+1) 25 25 30 Internal Dendrimer Bead (0) 60 30 25

(Yan & Yu 2009)

Page 20: CHEN90023 Lachlan Russell 389374

20

Table 2: Historic soft-core repulsion parameters used in the combined simulation.1, 2

Past simulation of the G5 PAMAM dendrimers in water using the parameters defined in Table 2 yielded

compact spherical structures with diameters consistent with empirical measurements.2, 42

Figure 16: Equilibrium configuration of a G5 PAMAM dendrimer in water 2.

The effect of the soft-core repulsion parameters changes, especially the reduction of the

hydrophobicity of internal dendrimer beads (from 80 to 60), caused the dendrimer to equilibrate to

a size approximately 40% larger than desired.

Figure 17: Dendrimer introduced into the combined simulations

The simulation codes which modelled the dendrimer isolated from the bilayer were not made

available and the artifacts were only detected after returning to Australia and hence could not be

rectified. In the combined simulation environment the parameters were restored to their original

values; however, the dendrimer did not have sufficient time to structurally equilibrate before

interacting with the bilayer in its more open form (refer to Suggestions for Further Work).

Minor structural variation was likely further compounded by other sources. As previously mentioned,

due to the inclusion of random forces in the DPD model an exact morphological match was not

expected. Furthermore, the incorporated hydrophilicity of the receptor beads caused the bilayer

surface to be more open. The internal dendrimer beads (yellow) were modelled as hydrophobic. In

addition the parameters defining the interaction between the hydrophobic lipid tails (cyan) and both

types of dendrimer beads (red, yellow) were less repulsive than the parameters defining the

interactions between the hydrophobic lipid tails (cyan) and the lipid headgroup beads (green, blue,

orange, purple). As a result penetrability of the dendrimer increased from fp=0.02 to fp=0.1109 when

interacting with the new bilayer with the more open surface (refer to Appendix 5).

Solvent Bead (0) Surface Dendrimer Bead

(+1)

Internal Dendrimer Bead

(0)

Solvent Bead (0) 25 20 80 Surface Dendrimer Bead (+1) 20 25 28 Internal Dendrimer Bead (0) 80 28 25

Page 21: CHEN90023 Lachlan Russell 389374

21

5.3 Simulation of the System with Dendrimer Heads modelled as Ligands Despite the non-steady-state morphological discrepancies and discussed deficiencies of the model, it

was tested whether the generation of structures resembling those expected if clathrin-mediated

endocytosis were responsible for transmembrane transport was possible. Further refinement of soft-

core repulsion parameters was required. It was assumed that the surface amine functional groups of

the dendrimer could substitute for ligand complexes (refer to Further Discussion). The effect of this

assumption was tested by holding constant all soft-core repulsion parameters for the surface

dendrimer beads excluding the parameter governing the surface dendrimer bead-receptor bead

interaction (αRL). This parameter was, in many instances, modelled to be attractive in order to simulate

the strong binding relationship between ligands and receptors.11

5.3.1 Initial Attempts to Generate Clathrin-mediated Endocytic Morphology

The following structures were achieved after 105 timesteps (approximately 15 μs). The surface

dendrimer bead soft-core interaction parameter was varied from a repulsive αRL=15 through to an

attractive αRL=-30 (refer to Appendix 1: Table 7):

Figure 18: Penetration profiles of simulations. For the purposes of clear illustration of the counterions and part of the bilayer structures have been omitted.

In these simulations, encapsulation of the dendrimer was not observed. The asphericity and radii of

gyration were larger than would be expected if encapsulation were responsible for penetration.

Figure 19: Radii of gyration of simulated dendrimer-bilayer systems after approximately 105 timesteps.

Figure 20: Asphericity of simulated dendrimer-bilayer systems after approximately 105 timesteps.

αRL=15 αRL=0 αRL=-15

3.6

3.7

3.8

3.9

4

4.1

-20 -10 0 10 20

Rad

ius

of

Gyr

atio

n R

g(n

m)

Soft-core Repulsion (αRL)

0

0.01

0.02

0.03

0.04

0.05

0.06

-20 -10 0 10 20Asp

her

icit

y (A

s)

Soft-core Repulsion (αRL)

Page 22: CHEN90023 Lachlan Russell 389374

22

Further data is required if the observed trends of increasing radii of gyration and asphericity with the

decrease in the soft-core interaction parameter αRL are to be substantiated. Due to computing

constraints, an inadequate number of different values of αRL were tested. Furthermore, sampling at

t=100,000 was not performed by calculating statistics from multiple simulation runs with the same αRL

value. Only one simulation per tested value of αRL was able to be run and statistics were calculated

from neighboring timesteps (98,000; 99,000; 100,000; 101,000; 102,000). As such, error bars of one

standard deviation from the mean are depicted by these graphs. Repeated simulations would allow

for the calculation of standard errors and greater confidence when interpreting results (refer to

Suggestions for Further Work). Such trends would be expected in these non-steady-state snapshots

as a reduction in αRL should allow the dendrimer structure to migrate through the bilayer more quickly.

This is because the dendrimer heads are more strongly attracted to receptor beads on both sides of

the membrane, stretching the dendrimer across the internal bilayer structure as encapsulation was

not observed. Furthermore, the increasing attraction between the receptor heads and outer

dendrimer beads led to a wider spread of dendrimer on the bilayer surfaces consistent with similar

simulations without the receptor-simulating lipid inclusion.2 These expectations were further

supported by penetration data. Penetration similarly appeared to increase with with a decrease in the

soft-core interaction parameter αRL:

Figure 21: Penetration of the dendrimer into the bilayer after approximately 105 timesteps.

Again, due to variability and incompleteness of data, further simulation is required in order to test

whether this observed and expected trend is statistically significant. This statistical insignificance of

the data is further demonstrated by Figure 22 using confidence bands calculated to bound 95% of

least-squares linear regressions that could be expected to be generated given the sampling

methodology (refer to Appendix 6). Note that a linearly-increasing relationship could be plotted

between αRL=-15 and αRL=15 within these confidence bands and that linearity is not expected

necessarily.

0

0.05

0.1

0.15

0.2

0.25

-20 -10 0 10 20Pen

etra

tio

n (

f p)

Soft-core Repulsion (αRL)

Page 23: CHEN90023 Lachlan Russell 389374

23

Figure 22: Penetration data bounded by linear regression confidence bands.

In all simulations the dendrimers were able to penetrate the bilayer to varying degrees. In these

simulations, the penetration was possible due to the hydrophobicity of the internal dendrimer beads

(yellow) combined with the observation that the parameters defining the interaction between the

hydrophobic lipid tails (cyan) and both types of dendrimer beads (red, yellow) (α=28) were less

repulsive than the parameters defining the interactions between the hydrophobic lipid tails (cyan) and

the lipid headgroup beads (green, blue, orange, purple) (α=40).

As a result, the dendrimer did not simply adhere to the top surface of the bilayer. Instead the internal

dendrimer beads bridged the structure as they were only weakly repelled by the internal hydrophobic

section of the bilayer. The dendrimer head beads aggregated near the receptor beads on both sides

of the bilayer due to the introduced receptor-ligand interaction. The structures generated were

consistent with Yan and Yu’s findings that attraction between lipid tails and inner-dendrimer beads

has a large effect on penetrability.2

When the magnitude of the attractive force was too great (αRL=-30), the self-assembling bilayer

structure deteriorated (refer to Further Discussion).

Figure 23: Deterioration of bilayer structure with αRL=-30

With αRL<-25, the attractive force between receptors and dendrimer heads was greater than the

repulsive forces keeping like-beads apart from one another. This had the effect of creating physically

unrealistic and unstable regions of high bead density. The chaos of the system was further

Page 24: CHEN90023 Lachlan Russell 389374

24

compounded by these unstable regions crossing the boundaries of the simulation environment and

transporting to the other side of the box. Subsequent simulations used values of αRL equal to and

greater than -25.

5.3.2 Further Attempts to Generate Clathrin-mediated Endocytic Morphology

In accordance with Yan and Yu’s previous findings, to inhibit the observed bridging the repulsive

parameter governing the interaction between the internal dendrimer beads and the lipid tails was

increased from αTU=28 to αTU=40 (refer to Appendix 1: Table 8).2 Various values of αRL were trialled

from a repulsive αRL=15 through to an attractive αRL=-25. After longer simulations, 245 timesteps

(approximately 36 μs), the following morphologies were observed:

Figure 24: Penetration profiles of simulations. For the purposes of clear illustration of the counterions and part of the bilayer structures have been omitted.

Very different structures were observed after this increase in αTU. For αRL=15 the repulsion was so

great that the dendrimer did not even adhere to the surface of the bilayer. Hence, its profile is not

shown. However, in the absence of direct interaction with the bilayer, the radius of gyration of the

dendrimer was reduced significantly to 2.85 nm. Some axial stretching (As≈ 0.06) was caused by the

migration of counterions which accumulated in the volume separating the dendrimer and bilayer.

Nevertheless, this observation of significant shrinkage was welcome due to better agreement with

empirical measurements and previously discussed concerns (refer to Figure 17). For αRL=0, the

dendrimer adhered to the surface of the bilayer. Although not made clear by the cross-section

exhibited in Figure 24, random forces permitted the jumping of some surface dendrimer beads, with

internal dendrimer beads attached, across the bilayer as was even more strongly observed for the

case where the receptor-ligand interaction was modelled as attractive with αRL=-15. Note for αRL=-15

this attractive force was large enough to cause lipids to migrate onto the dendrimer. For αRL=-25 this

migration was pronounced. Additionally, the strength of the ligand-receptor attraction was much

greater relative to the random forces and dendrimer beads could no longer jump across the

membrane. Consequently, a morphology resembling endocytosis evolved. It was also observed that

the ligand-simulating dendrimer beads became more locally concentrated as αRL decreased (refer to

Further Discussion).

αRL=0 αRL=-15 αRL=-25

Page 25: CHEN90023 Lachlan Russell 389374

25

Figure 25: Radii of gyration of simulated dendrimer-bilayer systems after approximately 245 timesteps.

As previously discussed, more simulations are required to make better supported assertions. The

gyration radius was smallest for the dendrimer that did not bind to the bilayer (αRL=15). It increased

with decreasing αRL as per the previous results generated (refer to Section 5.3.1) until it decreased

with the onset of encapsulation for αRL=-25 (refer to Figure 25).

Figure 26: Penetration of the dendrimer into the bilayer after approximately 245 timesteps.

Penetrability statistics were consistent with the profiles generated as well as the negative correlation

described in the analysis of earlier simulations (refer to Figure 26). Penetration was achieved by the

lipids moving to encapsulate the dendrimer for αRL=-25 by direct penetration for αRL=0 and likely by a

combination of both mechanisms for αRL=-15.

Figure 27: Asphericity of simulated dendrimer-bilayer systems after approximately 245 timesteps.

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

-30 -20 -10 0 10 20Rad

ius

of

Gyr

atio

n

Rg

(nm

)Soft-core Repulsion (αRL)

0

0.05

0.1

0.15

0.2

0.25

0.3

-30 -20 -10 0 10 20

Pen

etra

tio

n (

f p)

Soft-core Repulsion (αRL)

0

0.02

0.04

0.06

0.08

0.1

0.12

0.14

-30 -20 -10 0 10 20

Asp

her

icit

y (A

s)

Soft-core Repulsion (αRL)

Page 26: CHEN90023 Lachlan Russell 389374

26

As discussed, the dendrimer that did not bind to the bilayer was axially stretched by the counterions.

For αRL=0 most of the dendrimer was bound to the surface of the bilayer in a comparatively spherical

shape. The asphericity increased for αRL=-15 as the dendrimer structure opened. Surprisingly, the

structure most closely resembling encapsulation developed the most aspherical form. The large

asphericity of the structure generated for αRL=-25 in Figure 24 can be explained by its morphological

development depicted by Figure 27:

Figure 28: Morphological progression for αRL=-25.

Due to the strong attraction between the receptors and the ligand-simulating dendrimer beads the

dendrimer initially flattened out over the surface of the bilayer. Subsequently, receptors migrated on

top of the dendrimer. The flat shape of the dendrimer was maintained and after approximately 27 µs

the dendrimer broke through to the other side of the bilayer due to a combination of random forces,

receptor-ligand attraction and increased pressure exerted by the growing number of repulsive lipid

tails on top of the dendrimer. Subsequently, more receptor beads migrated to cover this breach and

structures resembling encapsulation were observed. It is believed that if the simulation were able to

continue a steady-state would be reached with a more spherical dendrimer structure evolving and an

approximately equal number of dendrimer beads concentrated on either side of the midline of the

bilayer (fp≈0.5) (refer to Suggestions for Further Work). However, continued simulation was not

possible due to computing constraints. The relationship between these observed morphologies to

CME and other simulations will be discussed in Section 6.

0µs 9µs 18µs

27µs 36µs 45µs

Page 27: CHEN90023 Lachlan Russell 389374

27

A phase table describing the morphologies for different soft-core repulsion parameters was

generated:

Table 3: Phase table describing different morphologies as a result of changing soft-core repulsion parameters.

αRL

αTU

-25 -15 0 15

28 - Strong Direct Penetration

Direct Penetration Direct Penetration

40 Endocytosis Direct Penetration With Pronounced

Receptor Migration

Adhesion with Direct Penetration

No Adhesion

Scope exists to further develop this table in conjunction with improving an understanding for how

physical properties relate to the soft-repulsion parameters (refer to Suggestions Further Work).

Page 28: CHEN90023 Lachlan Russell 389374

28

6.0 Further Discussion

6.1 Known Shortcomings of the Model Given the simplicity of the simulated membrane a true representation of the clathrin-mediated

endocytosis was unlikely to have been simulated.

Figure 29: Schematic illustrating more representative membrane complexity.43

This experiment used a tensionless membrane. In reality it has been shown that surface tension varies

and that locally, negative surface tension can be generated by the cytoskeleton, dynamin or the actin

filaments.39 Consequently, internalisation via invagination and cytotoxicity associated with hole

generation (refer to Figure 30) were unlikely to be well-modelled by these simulations.

Figure 30: Empirically observed hole inducing effects of cationic PAMAM dendrimers on tense lipid bilayer using atomic force microscopy; 44 see also 1, 36-38, 45, 46.

Other simulations have regulated the tension of the bilayer. In order to maintain a constant surface

tension, frequent transformations (refer to Equation 19) to the dimensions of the simulation box can

be performed whilst keeping the simulation volume constant.2

(19)

Page 29: CHEN90023 Lachlan Russell 389374

29

Alternatively, the N-varied DPD method maintains a constant membrane tension by adding and

removing water and lipids from the edges of the simulation environment as required.39

Additionally, the receptor beads were too simple to form complex clathrin cages to encapsulate the

dendrimer:

Figure 31: A clathrin cage with a single triskelion (composed of three interlocking clathrin proteins) highlighted.47

In biological fluids, nanoparticles may interact with other circulated proteins and not with cellular

membranes. Hence, simulating in a pure solvent environment may not be representative of reality

even on such small length scales.7 The 1:3 ratio of lipid types was chosen hastily due to time pressures.

Other studies have incorporated 1:1 ratio in accordance with current knowledge of mammalian

membranes (refer to Suggestions for Further Work).13, 48 Also, the uniform distribution of receptors

and ligand-simulating dendrimer beads on the surfaces of the membrane and dendrimer was not

representative of a real system. It was assumed that the surface amine functional groups could

substitute for ligands yielding this uniform distribution. Chemical synthesis of dendrimers is not able

to achieve such uniformity. Synthesis of ligand coated PAMAM results in a distribution of the number

of attached ligands. The number of attached ligands is much fewer in number than the number of

surface amine groups.49 Simulating the effects of ligand distributions on cellular uptake has been

studied but only using polygons as interacting particles (refer to Suggestions for Further Work).12

Consistent with Yan and Yu’s modelling, a number of counterions were included in the simulation and

behaved according to the electrostatics detailed in Section 2.1 However, this implementation lacks

refinement, further compounding potential sources of inaccuracy. Similar concerns stemming from

the reuse of other parameters such as spring constants governing restorative forces exist. Finally, the

energies associated with receptor-ligand adhesion are largely unknown.50 αRL is related to these

unspecified energies. In order to observe endocytosis, αRL had to be made attractive enough to induce

locally dense regions populated by receptor and ligand head. This modification did not disturb the

thermostat; however, this clumping of beads may signify further deviation of the model from reality.

Yang and Ma were incorporated a classical Lennard–Jones potential to govern the receptor-ligand

interaction (refer to Figure 7) in order to prevent this issue.29

Page 30: CHEN90023 Lachlan Russell 389374

30

6.2 Relationship of CME to Simulations

Using this receptor model, encapsulation of the dendrimer was able to be simulated following changes

to the soft-core repulsion parameters. This encapsulation occurred via morphologies varying from

descriptions of CME and the hypothesis was consequently rejected. In the absence of invaginations

and actin-induced regions of negative surface tension, internalisation of the vesicle was not observed

via the ‘coated pit’ morphology depicted in Figure 5.51 Encapsulation was primarily observed to occur

by the migration of receptors to the adhesive front.50 Consequently, encapsulation appeared to occur

by a mechanism more closely resembling phagocytosis (refer to Figure 4). This mechanism is

associated with larger length scales than that which was simulated.25 Further investigation is required

to determine whether this model can be used for the purpose of simulating phagocytosis or revised

to produce simulations that mimic CME morphological progression.

Other simulations have been able to achieve similar structures resembling endocytosis. Macroscale

physics have been incorporated into these mesoscale models in the form of Canham-Helfrich theory.

Canham-Helfrich theory introduces membrane bending energies so as to limit direct penetration.39 It

was possible to achieve this outcome without the need for this added complexity by balancing soft

repulsion parameters.

6.3 The Notable Shortage of Empirical Data Experimentalists have not been able to accurately observe many proposed mechanisms for

endocytosis due to technological limitations at these lengthscales and timescales (refer to Figure

32).52, 53 There is currently a pressing need to be able to effectively differentiate between pathways

and perform quantitative analysis of transport mechanisms.54

Figure 32:Currently there is little overlap between what can experimentally be observed and what can be simulated when studying endocytosis.25

As mentioned previously, in order for the new model to be of value, it must reproduce solubilities,

liquid compressibilities and the shape of interfaces on the length scale of the course-grained

molecules.4 Such comparisons are currently limited by a deficiency in empirical data surrounding

endocytic processes. As a consequence, simulations do little more than attempt to generate

hypothesised morphological progression. Many attempts to incorporate the modest available data

Page 31: CHEN90023 Lachlan Russell 389374

31

into the DPD model have been made or discussed (e.g. isolated dendrimer size, lipid diffusion, hole

generation, hole size and lipid density). Due to the complexity of the system, many of the soft-core

repulsion parameters use in this simulation were estimated by qualitative arguments coupled with

iterative refinement or quoted from other studies which use similar methods.1, 17, 34 Some interaction

parameters are able to be generated from Flory-Huggins theory and empirical testing.19 Calculating a

complete set of Flory-Huggins 𝜒 parameters for complex systems, including those with multiple

nanoscale species with Janus properties would be extremely difficult given the number of interaction

pairs. Furthermore, energies associated with receptor-ligand binding, encapsulated gyration radii,

internalisation velocities are all currently unknown. If the key issues concerning this model are

addressed by reformulation, its future acceptance or rejection should be determined based on

agreement with available endocytic data and practical value however blind (refer to Suggestions for

Further Work).

Page 32: CHEN90023 Lachlan Russell 389374

32

7.0 Conclusions Incorporation of a receptor-simulating lipid into the bilayer and subsequent tuning of soft-core

repulsion parameters generated endocytic morphology. It was found that self-assembly of the bilayer

structure was not compromised when converting a quarter of the simulated lipid molecules into a

receptor-simulating lipid. These receptor-simulating lipids extended on average 0.4 nm further into

the solvent than the DPPC simulating lipids. The lipid density of the bilayer increased by approximately

13% when compared with Yan and Yu’s previous simulations.2 The stability of the DPD model, on

comparing with Yan and Yu’s previous simulations, was found to be compromised by changes made

to the interaction parameters governing the generation of the G5 PAMAM dendrimer in solvent,

causing it to be 40% more open than empirically observed (Rg=3.4 nm > Rg=2.4 nm). These changes

were partially rectified for the simulations by reverting the interaction parameters to their historic

values; however, these changes could not impose the required structural changes before interaction

with the bilayer, increasing penetration.

Despite these issues, (resulting in enhanced direct penetration,) further refinement of the soft-core

repulsion parameters revealed that endocytosis could be modelled. Statistical analysis of changes to

the soft-core interaction parameter governing the behaviour of proximal dendrimer surface beads and

receptor beads suggested that penetrability could be increased if this repulsive force was instead

modelled as attractive. The magnitude of this attraction was limited such that for αRL>-25 the bilayer

structure became unstable due to the resultant creation of hyper-dense regions within the simulation

box. The observed structures of dendrimers generated by these changes were open and distributed

throughout the structure of the bilayer, again suggesting entry by direct penetration. Encapsulation

of the dendrimer was promoted after subsequently increasing the repulsive force between the

internal dendrimer beads and the lipid tails of the bilayer. From these results it was concluded that

the binding energy between receptors and ligands as well as the hydrophobic interaction between the

bilayer lipid tails and internal structure of the interacting particle has a large effect on binding and the

type of penetration.

Morphological changes in the simulation in which a form of endocytosis was observed may provide

some insight as to how such encapsulation progresses. However, due to the discussed limitations of

the model the morphology more closely matched a phagocytic mechanism. On the simulated length

scale such a result was unexpected indicating that further refinement of the model may be needed

(refer to Suggestions for Further Work) if CME, as it is currently understood, is to be simulated and

the presently unobservable dynamics conjectured. As discussed, due to computational constraints,

many of the results of the simulations run in this study were largely preliminary.

Continued effort in this area of research will have future implications for drug development. When

models can be used with confidence, molecular architectures will be able to be tested without costly

synthesis. In order to generate robust models and build this confidence, continued interest in

formulation and modification is required to better describe the intricacies of the very complex yet

fundamental process of endocytosis.

Page 33: CHEN90023 Lachlan Russell 389374

33

8.0 Suggestions for Further Work Future experiments require access to appropriate computing resources similar to the cluster systems

housed at VLSCI.

8.1 Simple Immediate Revisions to the Current DPD Model As uncovered by the results generated, revisions to enhance the representativeness of the DPD model

need to be made:

The assembly of the bilayer structure needs to resimulated with the ‘target lipid density’ set

to 0.64 nm2.

The prevalence of receptor-simulating lipids needs to be increased to approximately 50% in

accordance with current knowledge of mammalian membranes.13, 48

The protrusion of these receptor lipids into the solvent may also need to be revised in light of

information from empirical studies of bilayer structure.

Reversion to the original parameters governing the dendrimer-water system need to be

readopted and simulated so that on introducing the dendrimer to the bilayer simulation box

the structure of the dendrimer agrees with empirical measurements.

The introduction of an additional type of ligand bead distributed on the surface of the

dendrimer in accordance with Mullen and Banaszak Holl’s findings needs to be incorporated

to remove the erroneous assumption that surface amine functional groups can substitute for

ligand complexes.49

To prevent the dense clumping of ligand and receptor beads, in accordance with Yang and

Ma, this attractive pairwise interaction should be governed by a classical Lennard–Jones

potential.29

The diffusion constant for membrane receptors in a bilayer is estimated to be approximately

104 nm2/s.50 If accurate tracking of these receptors can be performed, αRL can be tuned to

achieve expected diffusion.

The concentration of counterions and spring coefficients may require revision following

examination of relevant literature.

8.2 Extension of Results

Subsequent to the introduction of these changes, extended simulation is required to see whether CME

can be observed. Multiple simulations running with the same set of soft-core interaction parameters

are required so that sampling techniques and data interpretation can be strengthened. Simulations

should ideally be run until steady-states have been reached so as to gain more a complete

understanding of morphological progression. From these results comprehensive phase diagrams could

be generated.

It may be that CME still cannot be simulated following these simple revisions. A new model

incorporating a more complex bilayer structure may be required. The distribution, size and structure

of the receptors may need to be revised so that they are able to form clathrin cage-like configurations

(refer to Figure 31). Similarly, strategies to control the surface tension of the bilayer on macro and

local scales may need to be incorporated to simulate the roles of actin and dynamin in promoting

invagination and vesicle release (refer to Figure 4).

Page 34: CHEN90023 Lachlan Russell 389374

34

If CME is not observed following the simple revisions this model could still be extended to simulate a

larger interacting particle instead of G5 PAMAM. It is known that phagocytosis occurs on larger length

scales. Subsequent to further evaluation as to whether the endocytic morphology generated by this

study resembles phagocytosis, it would be interesting to observe whether similar encapsulation could

be induced without the need to incorporate energies associated with membrane deformation into the

model, as is often done when simulating on larger length scales.

Page 35: CHEN90023 Lachlan Russell 389374

35

9.0 References

1. Yan, L.-T. and X. Yu, Enhanced Permeability of Charged Dendrimers across Tense Lipid Bilayer Membranes. ACS Nano, 2009. 3(8): p. 2171-2176.

2. Yan, L.-T. and X. Yu, Charged Dendrimers on Lipid Bilayer Membranes: Insight through Dissipative Particle Dynamics Simulations. Macromolecules, 2009. 42(16): p. 6277-6283.

3. Min, Y., et al., The role of interparticle and external forces in nanoparticle assembly. Nat Mater, 2008. 7(7): p. 527-538.

4. Groot, R.D. and T.J. Madden, Dynamic Simulation of Diblock Copolymer Microphase Separation. The Journal of Chemical Physics, 1998. 108(20): p. 8713-8724.

5. Qian, H.-J., et al., Computer Simulation of Cyclic Block Copolymer Microphase Separation. Macromolecules, 2005. 38(4): p. 1395-1401.

6. Beddoes, C.M., C.P. Case, and W.H. Briscoe, Understanding Nanoparticle Cellular Entry: A Physicochemical Perspective. Advances in Colloid and Interface Science, 2015. 218(0): p. 48-68.

7. Tian, F., Computer Simulation Studies on the Interactions Between Nanoparticles and Cell Membrane. Science China Chemistry, 2014. 57(12): p. 1662.

8. Yan, L.T. and X. Yu, Complexes Comprised of a Dendrimer and a Vesicle: Role of Vesicle Size and the Surface Tension of the Vesicle Membrane. Nanoscale, 2011. 3(9): p. 3812-8.

9. Abraham, J., Dissipative Particle Dynamics, in Encyclopedia of Microfluidics and Nanofluidics, D. Li, Editor. 2008, Springer US. p. 385-391.

10. Lee, H. and R. Larson, Multiscale Modeling of Dendrimers and Their Interactions with Bilayers and Polyelectrolytes. Molecules, 2009. 14(1): p. 423.

11. Li, Y., et al., Molecular Modeling of the Relationship between Nanoparticle Shape Anisotropy and Endocytosis Kinetics. Biomaterials, 2012. 33: p. 4965-4973.

12. Schubertova, V., F.J. Martinez-Veracoechea, and R. Vacha, Influence of Ligand Distribution on Uptake Efficiency. Soft Matter, 2015. 11(14): p. 2726-2730.

13. Vácha, R., F.J. Martinez-Veracoechea, and D. Frenkel, Intracellular Release of Endocytosed Nanoparticles Upon a Change of Ligand–Receptor Interaction. ACS Nano, 2012. 6(12): p. 10598-10605.

14. Kitchens, K.M., et al., Endocytosis and Interaction of Poly(amidoamine) Dendrimers with Caco-2 Cells. Pharmaceutical Research, 2007. 24(11): p. 2138-2145.

15. Seib, F.P., A.T. Jones, and R. Duncan, Comparison of the Endocytic Properties of Linear and Branched PEIs, and Cationic PAMAM Dendrimers in B16f10 Melanoma Cells. Journal of Controlled Release, 2007. 117(3): p. 291-300.

16. Hoogerbrugge, P.J. and J.M.V.A. Koelman, Simulating Microscopic Hydrodynamic Phenomena with Dissipative Particle Dynamics. EPL (Europhysics Letters), 1992. 19(3): p. 155.

17. Groot, R.D. and K.L. Rabone, Mesoscopic Simulation of Cell Membrane Damage, Morphology Change and Rupture by Nonionic Surfactants. Biophysical Journal, 2001. 81(2): p. 725-736.

18. Groot, R.D., Electrostatic Interactions in Dissipative Particle Dynamics—Simulation of Polyelectrolytes and Anionic Surfactants. The Journal of Chemical Physics, 2003. 118(24): p. 11265-11277.

19. Groot, R.D. and P.B. Warren, Dissipative Particle Dynamics: Bridging the Gap between Atomistic and Mesoscopic Simulation. The Journal of Chemical Physics, 1997. 107(11): p. 4423-4435.

20. Mintzer, M.A. and M.W. Grinstaff, Biomedical Applications of Dendrimers: A Tutorial. Chemical Society Reviews, 2011. 40(1): p. 173-190.

Page 36: CHEN90023 Lachlan Russell 389374

36

21. McNerny, D.Q., P.R. Leroueil, and J.R. Baker, Understanding Specific and Nonspecific Toxicities: A Requirement for the Development of Dendrimer-Based Pharmaceuticals. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Nanomedicine and Nanobiotechnology, 2010. 2(3): p. 249-259.

22. Shillcock, J.C. and R. Lipowsky, Equilibrium Structure and Lateral Stress Distribution of Amphiphilic Bilayers from Dissipative Particle Dynamics Simulations. Journal of Chemical Physics, 2002. 117(10): p. 5048.

23. Conner, S.D. and S.L. Schmid, Regulated Portals of Entry into the Cell. Nature, 2003. 422(6927): p. 37.

24. Canton, I. and G. Battaglia, Endocytosis at the Nanoscale. Chemical Society Reviews, 2012. 41(7): p. 2718-2739.

25. Qu, Z.G., et al., Advances in the Understanding of Nanomaterial-Biomembrane Interactions and their Mathematical and Numerical Modeling. Nanomedicine, 2013. 8(6): p. 995-1011.

26. Roth, T.F. and K.R. Porter, Yolk Protein Uptake in the Oocyte of the Mosquito Aedes Aegyti. L. The Journal Of Cell Biology, 1964. 20: p. 313-332.

27. Nel, A.E., et al., Understanding Biophysicochemical Interactions at the Nano–Bio Interface. Nature Materials, 2009. 8(7): p. 543-557.

28. Yue, T. and X. Zhang, Molecular Understanding of Receptor-Mediated Membrane Responses to Ligand-Coated Nanoparticles. Soft Matter, 2011. 7(19).

29. Yang, K. and Y.-q. Ma, Wrapping and Internalization of Nanoparticles by Lipid Bilayers: a Computer Simulation Study. Australian Journal of Chemistry, 2011. 64(7): p. 894.

30. Groot, R.D. and T.J. Madden, On the Role of Hydrodynamic Interactions in Block Copolymer Microphase Separation. Journal of Chemical Physics, 1999. 110(19): p. 9739.

31. Keaveny, E.E., et al., A Comparative Study between Dissipative Particle Dynamics and Molecular Dynamics for Simple- and Complex-Geometry Flows. The Journal of Chemical Physics, 2005. 123(10): p. 104107.

32. Moeendarbary, E., T.Y. Ng, and M. Zangeneh, Dissipative Particle Dynamics: Introduction, Methodology and Complex Fluid Applications - A Review. International Journal of Applied Mechanics, 2009. 01(04): p. 737-763.

33. Ingólfsson, H.I., et al., The Power of Coarse Graining in Biomolecular Simulations. WIREs: Computational Molecular Science, 2014. 4(3): p. 225.

34. Groot, R.D., Mesoscopic Simulation of Polymer−Surfactant Aggregation. Langmuir, 2000. 16(19): p. 7493.

35. Rodgers, J.M., et al., Understanding the Phase Behavior of Coarse-Grained Model Lipid Bilayers through Computational Calorimetry. The Journal of Physical Chemistry B, 2012. 116(5): p. 1551-1569.

36. Xie, L.-q., W.-d. Tian, and Y.-q. Ma, Computer Simulations of the Interactions of High-Generation Polyamidoamine Dendrimers with Electronegative Membranes. Soft Matter, 2013. 9(39): p. 9319-9325.

37. Kelly, C.V., et al., Poly(amidoamine) Dendrimers on Lipid Bilayers I: Free Energy and Conformation of Binding. The Journal of Physical Chemistry B, 2008. 112(31): p. 9337-9345.

38. Kelly, C.V., et al., Poly(amidoamine) Dendrimers on Lipid Bilayers II: Effects of Bilayer Phase and Dendrimer Termination. The Journal of Physical Chemistry B, 2008. 112(31): p. 9346-9353.

39. Guo, R., J. Mao, and L.-T. Yan, Unique Dynamical Approach of Fully Wrapping Dendrimer-like Soft Nanoparticles by Lipid Bilayer Membrane. ACS Nano, 2013. 7(12): p. 10646-10653.

40. Deserno, M., Elastic Deformation of a Fluid Membrane upon Colloid Binding. Physical Review E, 2004. 69(3): p. 031903.

41. Ding, H.-m., W.-d. Tian, and Y.-q. Ma, Designing Nanoparticle Translocation through Membranes by Computer Simulations. ACS Nano, 2012. 6(2): p. 1230-1238.

42. Choi, Y., et al., DNA-Directed Synthesis of Generation 7 and 5 PAMAM Dendrimer Nanoclusters. Nano Letters, 2004. 4(3): p. 391-397.

Page 37: CHEN90023 Lachlan Russell 389374

37

43. Venturoli, M., et al., Mesoscopic Models of Biological Membranes. Physics Reports, 2006. 437(1–2): p. 1-54.

44. Leroueil, P.R., et al., Wide varieties of cationic nanoparticles induce defects in supported lipid bilayers. Nano Letters, 2008. 8(2): p. 420-424.

45. Perumal, O.P., et al., The Effect of Surface Functionality on Cellular Trafficking of Dendrimers. Biomaterials, 2008. 29(24-25): p. 3469-76.

46. Mecke, A., et al., Lipid Bilayer Disruption by Polycationic Polymers: The Roles of Size and Chemical Functional Group. Langmuir: The ACS Journal Of Surfaces And Colloids, 2005. 21(23): p. 10348-10354.

47. Goodsell, D. and G. Johnson, Molecule of the Month: Clathrin. RCSB PDB, 2007. 48. Alberts, B., et al., Molecular Biology of the Cell. 2015, New York: N.Y. Garland Science, Taylor

and Francis Group. 49. Mullen, D.G. and M.M. Banaszak Holl, Heterogeneous Ligand–Nanoparticle Distributions: A

Major Obstacle to Scientific Understanding and Commercial Translation. Accounts of Chemical Research, 2011. 44(11): p. 1135-1145.

50. Gao, H., W. Shi, and L.B. Freund, Mechanics of Receptor-mediated Endocytosis. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 2005. 102(27): p. 9469-9474.

51. Doherty, G.J. and H.T. McMahon, Mechanisms of Endocytosis. Annual Review of Biochemistry, 2009. 78(1): p. 857-902.

52. Leroueil, P.R., et al., Nanoparticle Interaction with Biological Membranes: Does Nanotechnology Present a Janus Face? Accounts of Chemical Research, 2007. 40(5): p. 335-342.

53. Wang, T., et al., Cellular Uptake of Nanoparticles by Membrane Penetration: A Study Combining Confocal Microscopy with FTIR Spectroelectrochemistry. ACS Nano, 2012. 6(2): p. 1251-1259.

54. Akinc, A. and G. Battaglia, Exploiting Endocytosis for Nanomedicines. Cold Spring Harbor Perspectives in Biology, 2013. 5(11).

Page 38: CHEN90023 Lachlan Russell 389374

38

10.0 Appendices

Appendix 1: Simulation Soft-core Repulsion Parameters

Table 4: Historic soft-core repulsion parameters.1

Lipid Head (+1)

Lipid Head (-1)

Lipid Head

(0)

Lipid Tail (0)

Solvent Bead

(0)

Surface Dendrimer Bead (+1)

Counterions (-1)

Internal Dendrimer

Bead (0)

Lipid Head (+1) 25 17 22 40 22 15 20 28 Lipid Head (-1) 17 25 22 40 22 15 20 28 Lipid Head (0) 22 22 25 40 25 15 22 28 Lipid Tail (0) 40 40 40 25 80 28 80 28

Solvent Bead (0) 22 22 25 80 25 20 20 80 Surface Dendrimer

Bead (+1) 15 15 15 28 20 25 20 28

Counterions (-1) 20 20 22 80 20 20 25 28 Internal Dendrimer

Bead (0) 28 28 28 28 80 28 28 25

Table 5: Soft-core repulsion parameters for bilayer self-assembly.

Lipid

Head

(+1)

Lipid

Head (-1)

Lipid

Head (0)

Lipid Tail

(0)

Solvent Bead

(0)

Receptor Head

(0)

Lipid Head (+1) 25 17 22 40 22 25

Lipid Head (-1) 17 25 22 40 22 25

Lipid Head (0) 22 22 25 40 25 25

Lipid Tail (0) 40 40 40 25 80 40

Solvent Bead (0) 22 22 25 80 25 15

Receptor Head (0) 25 25 25 40 15 25

Page 39: CHEN90023 Lachlan Russell 389374

39

Table 6: Soft-core repulsion parameters for interacting bilayer-dendrimer system. Starred parameters were introduced not required by Yan and Yu’s receptorless system. These parameter were carefully chosen to model the receptor head similarly to other lipid heads in an attempt to reproduce Yan and Yu’s results.1, 2

Lipid

Head

(+1)

Lipid

Head

(-1)

Lipid

Head

(0)

Lipid

Tail

(0)

Solvent

Bead

(0)

Receptor

Head (0)

Surface

Dendrimer

Bead (+1)

Counterions

(-1)

Internal

Dendrimer

Bead (0)

Lipid Head (+1) 25 17 22 40 22 25* 15 20 28

Lipid Head (-1) 17 25 22 40 22 25* 15 20 28

Lipid Head (0) 22 22 25 40 25 25* 15 22 28

Lipid Tail (0) 40 40 40 25 80 40* 28 80 28

Solvent Bead (0) 22 22 25 80 25 25* 15 20 80

Receptor Head (0) 25* 25* 25* 40* 25* 25* 15* 12* 28*

Surface Dendrimer

Bead (+1)

15 15 15 28 15 15* 25 20 28

Counterions (-1) 20 20 22 80 20 12* 20 25 28

Internal Dendrimer

Bead (0)

28 28 28 28 80 28* 28 28 25

Table 7: Soft-core repulsion parameters for interacting bilayer and dendrimer.

Lipid

Head

(+1)

Lipid

Head

(-1)

Lipid

Head

(0)

Lipid

Tail

(0)

Solvent

Bead

(0)

Receptor

Head (0)

Surface

Dendrimer

Bead (+1)

Counterions

(-1)

Internal

Dendrimer

Bead (0)

Lipid Head (+1) 25 17 22 40 22 25 15 20 28

Lipid Head (-1) 17 25 22 40 22 25 15 20 28

Lipid Head (0) 22 22 25 40 25 25 15 22 28

Lipid Tail (0) 40 40 40 25 80 40 28 80 28

Solvent Bead (0) 22 22 25 80 25 25 15 20 80

Receptor Head (0) 25 25 25 40 25 25 αRL 12 28

Surface Dendrimer

Bead (+1)

15 15 15 28 15 αRL 25 20 28

Counterions (-1) 20 20 22 80 20 12 20 25 28

Internal Dendrimer

Bead (0)

28 28 28 28 80 28 28 28 25

Page 40: CHEN90023 Lachlan Russell 389374

40

Table 8: Revised soft-core repulsion parameters for interacting bilayer and dendrimer.

Lipid

Head

(+1)

Lipid

Head

(-1)

Lipid

Head

(0)

Lipid

Tail

(0)

Solvent

Bead

(0)

Receptor

Head (0)

Surface

Dendrimer

Bead (+1)

Counterions

(-1)

Internal

Dendrimer

Bead (0)

Lipid Head (+1) 25 17 22 40 22 25 15 20 28

Lipid Head (-1) 17 25 22 40 22 25 15 20 28

Lipid Head (0) 22 22 25 40 25 25 15 22 28

Lipid Tail (0) 40 40 40 25 80 40 28 80 αTU

Solvent Bead (0) 22 22 25 80 25 25 15 20 80

Receptor Head (0) 25 25 25 40 25 25 αRL 12 28

Surface Dendrimer

Bead (+1)

15 15 15 28 15 αRL 25 20 28

Counterions (-1) 20 20 22 80 20 12 20 25 28

Internal Dendrimer

Bead (0)

28 28 28 αTU 80 28 28 28 25

Page 41: CHEN90023 Lachlan Russell 389374

41

Appendix 2: MATLAB Code for Bilayer Bead Density Profile % Bilayer Bead Density by Displacement from Average z-coordinate

%create matrix with data from binary output file [file,path]=uigetfile('SpaGe1.bin','Open the file');%to save N(r)_r data if file fid=fopen([path,file],'r'); a=fread(fid,[4 inf],'float32'); end

%calculate zavg

ztot=0;

for i=1:numel(a)/4; z = a(3,i); ztot = ztot+z; end zavg= ztot/(numel(a)/4);

%avg displacement from zavg density= zeros(2,numel(a)/4); for i=1:numel(a)/4; density(1,i)=(a(3,i)-zavg); density(2,i)=a(4,i); end

%partition 0.05nm

x=linspace(-19.975, 20.025, 800);

for j=1:numel(a)/4 for i=1:numel(x)

if density(1,j)<= (x(i)+0.025) && density(1,j)>(x(i)-0.025) density(1,j)=x(i); end end end

%displacement histogram for relevant bilayer beads (types 1, 2, 3, 4, 6) y=zeros(6,numel(x));

for i=1:6

for j=1:numel(a)/4 for m=1:numel(x) if density(2,j)== i && density(1,j)== x(m) y(i,m)=y(i,m)+1/88.2; %volume of xy-sliver 88.2nm end end end end

y=[y(1,:);y(2,:);y(3,:);y(4,:);y(6,:)];

Page 42: CHEN90023 Lachlan Russell 389374

42

y=y';

%histogram smoothing smooth = sgolayfilt(y,3,29);

subplot(2,1,1) plot(x, smooth,'linewidth', 2)

axis([-5 5 0 3.5])

title('Displacement Distribution of Bilayer Beads from Central z-

coordinate') xlabel('Displacement from Bilayer Centre (nm)'),ylabel('Number Density

(beads/nm^3)');

legend('Lipid Head (+1)','Lipid Head (-1)','Lipid Head (0)','Lipid Tail

(0)','Receptor Head (0)')

subplot(2,1,2) plot(x,smooth, 'linewidth', 2) axis([0 5 0 1]) title('Magnified Displacement Distribution of Bilayer Beads from Central z-

coordinate') xlabel('Displacement from Bilayer Centre (nm)'),ylabel('Number Density

(beads/nm^3)');

legend('Lipid Head (+1)','Lipid Head (-1)','Lipid Head (0)','Lipid Tail

(0)','Receptor Head (0)')

Page 43: CHEN90023 Lachlan Russell 389374

43

Appendix 3: Asphericity Asphericity of the dendrimer can be calculated from the following equations:

(20)

Where I1 and I2 are the first two invariants:

(21)

(22)

𝜆1, 𝜆2, 𝜆3 are the eigenvalues of the gyration tensor:

𝑮𝑻 =𝟏

𝑵∑ (𝒔𝒊⨂𝒔𝒊)𝑵𝒊=𝟎 (23)

𝒔𝒊 = 𝒓𝒊 − 𝒓𝑪𝑴 (24)

% Asphericity MATLAB

%create matrix with data from binary output file [file,path]=uigetfile('SpaGe1.bin','Open the file');%to save N(r)_r data if file fid=fopen([path,file],'r'); a=fread(fid,[4 inf],'float32'); end

%remove counterions b=a; count=0; for i=1:numel(a)/4; if a(4,i)== 8 b(:, i-count) = []; count=count+1; else b(:,i-count)= a(:,i); end end

%calculate centre of mass (all beads have the same mass) xtot=0; ytot=0; ztot=0;

for i=1:numel(b)/4; x = b(1,i); xtot = xtot+x; end xavg= xtot/(numel(b)/4);

for i=1:numel(b)/4; y = b(2,i);

Page 44: CHEN90023 Lachlan Russell 389374

44

ytot = ytot+y; end yavg= ytot/(numel(b)/4);

for i=1:numel(b)/4; z = b(3,i); ztot = ztot+z; end zavg= ztot/(numel(b)/4);

rcm=[xavg;yavg;zavg]

%gyration tensor dispoutertot=zeros(3); disp = [0;0;0]; for i=1:numel(b)/4; for j=1:3 disp(j,1)=b(j,i)-rcm(j,1); end dispouter=disp*disp'; dispoutertot=dispoutertot+dispouter; end Gt=dispoutertot/(numel(b)/4)

%calculate asphericity eigvals=eig(Gt);

I1= sum(eigvals); I2= eigvals(1)*eigvals(2)+eigvals(2)*eigvals(3)+eigvals(3)*eigvals(1); As=1-(3*(I2)/(I1)^2)

Page 45: CHEN90023 Lachlan Russell 389374

45

Appendix 4: Radius of Gyration The radius of gyration is determined by the following equation:

(25)

Where the summation runs over all N beads in the dendrimer at positions ri. rcm denotes the center

of mass of the dendrimer.

% Gyration Radius MATLAB

%create matrix with data from binary output file [file,path]=uigetfile('SpaGe1.bin','Open the file');%to save N(r)_r data if file fid=fopen([path,file],'r'); a=fread(fid,[4 inf],'float32'); end

%remove counterions b=a; count=0; for i=1:numel(a)/4; if a(4,i)== 8 b(:, i-count) = []; count=count+1; else b(:,i-count)= a(:,i); end end

%calculate centre of mass (all beads have the same mass) xtot=0; ytot=0; ztot=0;

for i=1:numel(b)/4; x = b(1,i); xtot = xtot+x; end xavg= xtot/(numel(b)/4);

for i=1:numel(b)/4; y = b(2,i); ytot = ytot+y; end yavg= ytot/(numel(b)/4);

for i=1:numel(b)/4; z = b(3,i); ztot = ztot+z; end zavg= ztot/(numel(b)/4);

rcm=[xavg;yavg;zavg]

Page 46: CHEN90023 Lachlan Russell 389374

46

%squared displacement from centre of gravity squared dispsqutot=[0;0;0]; disp = [0;0;0]; for i=1:numel(b)/4; for j=1:3 disp(j,1)=b(j,i)-rcm(j,1); end dispsqu = disp.^2; dispsqutot=dispsqutot+dispsqu; end

sum(dispsqutot)/((numel(b)/4));

Rg = sqrt(sum(dispsqutot)/((numel(b)/4)))

Page 47: CHEN90023 Lachlan Russell 389374

47

Appendix 5: Penetrability Penetrability was defined as the fraction of dendrimers that were below the average z-coordinate of all lipid beads enclosed by the maximum and minimum x,y coordinates of the dendrimer beads at the fringes of the dendrimer structure. % Penetrability MATLAB

%create matrix with data from binary output file [file,path]=uigetfile('SpaGe1.bin','Open the file');%to save N(r)_r data if file fid=fopen([path,file],'r'); a=fread(fid,[4 inf],'float32'); end [file,path]=uigetfile('SpaGe2.bin','Open the file');%to save N(r)_r data if file fid=fopen([path,file],'r'); c=fread(fid,[4 inf],'float32');

end

%remove counterions b=c; count=0; for i=1:numel(c)/4; if c(4,i)== 8 b(:, i-count) = []; count=count+1; else b(:,i-count)= c(:,i); end end

%box coordinates to determine relevant bilayer beads for penetrability

dimmax=max(b,[],2); dimmin=min(b,[],2); dimensions=[dimmin(1,1),dimmin(2,1); dimmax(1,1),dimmax(2,1)];

%remove irrelevant bilayer beads

d=a; count=0; for i=1:numel(a)/4; if

a(1,i)<=dimensions(1,1)|a(2,i)<=dimensions(1,2)|a(1,i)>=dimensions(2,1)|a(2

,i)>=dimensions(2,2) d(:, i-count) = []; count=count+1; else d(:,i-count)= a(:,i); end end

%calculate average z coordinate of remaining bilayer (all beads have the

same mass) ztot=0;

for i=1:numel(d)/4;

Page 48: CHEN90023 Lachlan Russell 389374

48

z = (3,i); ztot = ztot+z; end zavg= ztot/(numel(d)/4)

test=ones(1,numel(b)/4);

%test if dendrimer below middle of bilayer for i=1:numel(b)/4 if b(3,i)<=zavg test(1,i)=1; else test(1,i)=0; end end

%fraction below middle of bilayer

fp=sum(test)/numel(test)

Page 49: CHEN90023 Lachlan Russell 389374

49

Appendix 6: Confidence Bands Data file:

aRL fp

15 0.1109

15 0.1327

15 0.1426

15 0.1485

15 0.1089

0 0.1386

0 0.1762

0 0.1762

0 0.1802

0 0.2

-15 0.2693

-15 0.2178

-15 0.2495

-15 0.1881

-15 0.1861

R Code:

data = read.delim(file.choose(),header=T)

X=data$aRL

Y=data$fp

plot(X, Y, xlab="aRL", ylab="Penetrability fp", xlim=c(-20,

20), ylim=c(0, 0.4))

ml=lm(Y~X)

%abline(ml)

summary(ml)

confint(ml,level=0.95)

bands=predict(ml,newdata=data.frame(X),interval=c("prediction"

),level=0.95)

lines(X, bands[, "lwr"], lty = "dotted")

lines(X, bands[, "upr"], lty = "dotted")

Page 50: CHEN90023 Lachlan Russell 389374

50

Appendix 7: Intermediate Data

Table 9: Rg data for αTU=28

αRL\Timestep 98000 99000 100000 101000 102000 μ σ

15 3.8E+00 3.7E+00 3.7E+00 3.7E+00 3.7E+00 3.7E+00 2.5E-02

0 3.9E+00 3.8E+00 3.9E+00 3.8E+00 3.9E+00 3.9E+00 5.2E-02

-15 4.0E+00 4.1E+00 4.0E+00 4.0E+00 4.0E+00 4.0E+00 3.1E-02

Table 10: As data for αTU=28

αRL\Timestep 98000 99000 100000 101000 102000 μ σ

15 3.3E-02 1.9E-02 5.3E-03 1.1E-02 1.3E-02 1.6E-02 1.1E-02

0 3.8E-02 3.4E-02 3.2E-02 1.5E-02 2.7E-02 2.9E-02 9.1E-03

-15 2.4E-02 4.3E-02 3.1E-02 3.3E-02 5.6E-02 3.7E-02 1.3E-02

Table 11: fp data for αTU=28

αRL\Timestep 98000 99000 100000 101000 102000 μ σ

15 1.1E-01 1.3E-01 1.4E-01 1.5E-01 1.1E-01 1.3E-01 1.8E-02

0 1.4E-01 1.8E-01 1.8E-01 1.8E-01 2.0E-01 1.7E-01 2.2E-02

-15 2.7E-01 2.2E-01 2.5E-01 1.9E-01 1.9E-01 2.2E-01 3.7E-02

Table 12: Rg data for αTU=40

αRL\Timestep 238000 239000 240000 241000 242000 μ σ

0 3.2E+00 3.2E+00 3.2E+00 3.3E+00 3.2E+00 3.2E+00 4.2E-02

15 2.8E+00 2.8E+00 2.8E+00 2.9E+00 2.9E+00 2.9E+00 7.1E-02

-15 3.7E+00 3.7E+00 3.5E+00 3.6E+00 3.6E+00 3.6E+00 7.9E-02

-25 3.3E+00 3.3E+00 3.3E+00 3.3E+00 3.3E+00 3.3E+00 3.1E-02

Table 13: As data for αTU=40

αRL\Timestep 238000 239000 240000 241000 242000 μ σ

0 3.2E-02 4.6E-02 3.6E-02 2.7E-02 2.6E-02 3.3E-02 8.5E-03

15 4.4E-02 3.8E-02 5.1E-02 1.0E-01 8.6E-02 6.4E-02 2.8E-02

-15 5.6E-02 7.6E-02 5.2E-02 3.5E-02 4.5E-02 5.3E-02 1.5E-02

-25 1.2E-01 1.3E-01 1.3E-01 1.2E-01 1.1E-01 1.2E-01 8.4E-03

Table 14: Rg data for αTU=40

αRL\Timestep 238000 239000 240000 241000 242000 μ σ

0 1.1E-01 1.1E-01 1.1E-01 1.1E-01 8.5E-02 1.1E-01 1.2E-02

15 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 0.0E+00

-15 1.5E-01 1.7E-01 1.6E-01 1.3E-01 1.6E-01 1.5E-01 1.2E-02

-25 2.7E-01 2.6E-01 2.3E-01 2.6E-01 2.7E-01 2.6E-01 1.8E-02