Stability vs flexibility: reshaping archaeal membranes in silico

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

Summary:

Amaral et al. presents a study investigating the mesoscale modelling and dynamics of bolalipids.

Strengths:

The figures in this paper are exceptional. Both those to outline and introduce the lipid types, but also the quality and resolution of the plots. The data held within also appears to be outstanding and of significant (hopefully) general interest.

Weaknesses:

In the introduction, I would like to have read more specifics on the biological role of bolalipids. Archaea are mentioned, but this kingdom is huge - there must be specific species that can be discussed where bolalipids are integral to archaeal life. The authors should go beyond 'extremophiles'. In short, they should unpack why the general audience should be interested in these lipids, within a subset of organisms that are often forgotten about.

Reviewer #2 (Public review):

Summary:

The authors aimed to understand the biophysical properties of archeal membranes made of bolalipids. Bacterial and eukaryotic membranes are made of lipids that self-assemble into bilayers. Archea, instead, use bolalipids, lipids that have two headgroups and can span the entire bilayer. The authors wanted to determine if the unique characteristics of archaea, which are often extremophiles, are in part due to the fact that their membranes contain bolalipids.

The authors develop a minimal computational model to compare the biophysics of bilayers made of lipids, bolalipids, and mixtures of the two. Their model enables them to determine essential parameters such as bilayer phase diagrams, mechanical moduli, and the bilayer behavior upon cargo inclusion and remodeling.

The author demonstrates that bolalipid bilayers behave as binary mixtures, containing bolalipids organized either in a straight conformation, spanning the entire bilayer, or in a u-shaped one, confined to a single leaflet. This dynamic mixture allows bolalipid bilayers to be very sturdy but also provides remodeling. However, remodeling is energetically more expensive than with standard lipids. The authors speculate that this might be why lipids were more abundant in the evolutionary process.

Strengths:

This is a wonderful paper, a very fine piece of scholarship. It is interesting from the point of view of biology, biophysics, and material science. The authors mastered the modeling and analysis of these complex systems. The evidence for their findings is really strong and complete. The paper is written superbly, the language is precise and the reading experience is very pleasant. The plots are very well-thought-out.

Weaknesses:

I would not talk about weaknesses, because this is really a nice paper. If I really had to find one, I would have liked to see some clear predictions of the model expressed in such a way that experimentalists could design validation experiments.

Reviewer #3 (Public review):

Summary:

The authors have studied the mechanics of bolalipid and archaeal mixed-lipid membranes via comprehensive molecular dynamics simulations. The Cooke-Deserno 3-bead-per-lipid model is extended to bolalipids with 6 beads. Phase diagrams, bending rigidity, mechanical stability of curved membranes, and cargo uptake are studied. Effects such as the formation of U-shaped bolalipids, pore formation in highly curved regions, and changes in membrane rigidity are studied and discussed. The main aim has been to show how the mixture of bolalipids and regular bilayer lipids in archaeal membrane models enhances the fluidity and stability of these membranes.

Strengths:

The authors have presented a wide range of simulation results for different membrane conditions and conformations. For the most part, the analyses and their results are presented clearly and concisely. Figures, supplementary information, and movies very well present what has been studied. The manuscript is well-written and is easy to follow.

Major issues:

The Cooke-Deserno model, while very powerful for biophysical analysis of membranes at the mesoscale, is very much void of chemical information. It is parameterized such that it is good in producing fluid membranes and predicting values for bending rigidity, compressibility, and even thermal expansion coefficient falling in the accepted range of values for bilayer membranes. But it still represents a generic membrane. Now, the authors have suggested a similar model for the archaeal bolalipids, which have chemically different lipids (the presence of cyclopentane rings for one), and there is no good justification for using the same pairwise interactions between their representative beads in the coarse-grained model. This does not necessarily diminish the worth of all the authors' analyses. What is at risk here is the confusion between "what we observe this model of bolalipid- or mixed-membranes do" and "how real bolalipid-containing archaeal membranes behave at these mechanical and thermal conditions.".

Another more specific, major issue has to do with using the Hamm-Kozlov model for fitting the power spectrum of thermal undulations. The 1/q^2 term can very well be attributed to membrane tension. While a barostat is indeed used, have the authors made absolutely sure that the deviation from 1/q^4 behavior does not correspond to lateral tension? I got more worried when I noticed in the SI that the simulations had been done with combined "fix langevin" and "fix nph" LAMMPS commands. This combination does not result in a proper isothermal-isobaric ensemble. The importance of tilt terms for bolalipids is indeed very interesting, but I believe more care is needed to establish that.

This issue is reinforced when considering Figure 3B. These results suggest that increasing the fraction of regular lipids increases the tilt modulus, with the maximum value achieved for a normal Cooke-Deserno bilayer void of bolalipids. But this is contradictory. For these bilayers, we don't need the tilt modulus in the first place.

Also, from the SI, I gathered that the authors have neglected the longest wavelength mode because it is not equilibrated. If this is indeed the case, it is a dangerous thing to do, because with a small membrane patch, this mode can very well change the general trend of the power spectrum. As a lot of other analyses in the manuscript rely on these measurements, I believe more elaboration is in order.

The authors have found that "there is a strong dependency of the bending rigidity on the membrane mean curvature of stiffer bolalipids." The effect is negative, with the membrane becoming less stiff at higher mean curvatures. Why is that? I would assume that with more flexible bolalipids, the possibility of reorganization into U-shaped chains should affect the bending rigidity more (as Figure 2E suggests). While for a stiff bolalipid, not much would change if you increase the mean curvature. This should be either a tilt effect, or have to do with asymmetry between the leaflets. But on the other hand, the tilt modulus is shown to decrease with increasing bolalipid rigidity. The authors get back to this issue only on page 10, when they consider U-shaped lipids in the inner and outer leaflets and write, "this suggested that an additional membrane-curving mechanism must be involved." But then again, in the Discussion, the authors write, "It is striking that membranes made from stiffer bolalipids showed a curvature-dependent bending modulus, which is a clear signature that bolalipid membranes exhibit plastic behavior during membrane reshaping," adding to the confusion.

This issue is repeated when the authors study nanoparticle uptake. They write: "to reconcile these seemingly conflicting observations we reason that the bending rigidity, similar to Figure 2F, is not constant but softens upon increasing membrane curvature, due to dynamic change in the ratio between bolalipids in straight and U-shaped conformation. Hence, bolalipid membranes show stroking plastic behavior as they soften during reshaping." But the softening effect that they refer to, as shown in Figure 4B, occurs for very stiff bolalipids, for which not much switching to U-shaped conformation should occur.

Another major issue is with what the authors refer to as the "effective temperature". While plotting phase diagrams for kT/eps value is absolutely valid, I'm not a fan of calling this effective temperature. It is a dimensionless quantity that scales linearly with temperature, but is not a temperature. It is usually called a "reduced temperature". Then the authors refer to their findings as studying the stability of archaeal membranes at high temperatures. I have to disagree because eps is not the only potential parameter in the simulations (there are at least space exclusion and angle-bending stiffnesses) so one cannot identify changing eps with changing the global simulation temperature. This only works when you have one potential parameter, like an LJ gas.

Minor issues:

As the authors have noted, the fact that the membrane curvature can change the ratio of U-shaped to straight bolalipids would render the curvature elasticity non-linear (though the term "plastic" should not be used, as this is still structurally reversible when the stress is removed. Technically, it is hypoelastic behavior, possibly with hysteresis.) With this in mind, when the authors use essentially linear elastic models for fluctuation analysis, they should make a comparison of maximum curvatures occurring in simulations with a range that causes significant changes in bolalipid conformational ratios.

The Introduction section of the manuscript is written with a biochemical approach, with very minor attention to the simulation works on this system. Some molecular dynamics works are only cited as existing previous work, without mentioning what has already been studied in archaeal membranes. While some information, like the binding of ESCRT proteins to archaeal membranes, though interesting, helps little to place the study within the discipline. The Introduction should be revised to show what has already been studied with simulations (as the authors mention in the Discussion) and how the presented research complements it.

The authors have been a bit loose with using the term "stability". I'd like to see the distinction in each case, as in "chemical/thermal/mechanical/conformational stability".

In the original Cooke-Deserno model, a so-called "poorman's angle-bending term" is used, which is essentially a bond-stretching term between the first and third particle. However, I notice the authors using the full harmonic angle-bending potential. This should be mentioned.

The analysis of energy of U-shaped lipids with the linear model E=c_0 + c_1 * k_bola is indeed very interesting. I am curious, can this also be corroborated with mean energy measurements? The minor issue is calling the source of the favorability of U-shaped lipids "entropic", while clearly an energetic contribution is found. The two conformations, for example, might differ in the interactions with the neighboring lipids.

The authors write in the Discussion, "In any case, our results indicate that membrane remodelling, such as membrane fission during membrane traffic, is much more difficult in bolalipid membranes [34]." Firstly, I'm not sure if studying the dependence of budding behavior on adhesion energy with nanoparticles is enough to make claims about membrane fission. Secondly, why is the 2015 paper by Markus Deserno cited here?

In the SI, where the measurement of the diffusion coefficient is discussed, the expression for D is missing the power 2 of displacement.

Where cargo uptake is discussed, the term "adsorption energy" is used. I think the more appropriate term would be "adhesion energy".

Typos:
Page 1, paragraph 2: Adaption → Adaptation.
Page 10, paragraph 1: Stroking → Striking.