1: \documentclass[twocolumn,pre,twoside,showpacs,showkeys,floatfix, superscriptaddress]{revtex4}
2:
3: \usepackage{amsmath}
4: \usepackage{amssymb}
5: \usepackage{graphicx}
6: \usepackage{dcolumn}
7: \usepackage{bm}
8:
9: \def\d{\mathrm{d}}
10: \def\vec#1{\mathbf{#1}}
11:
12:
13: \begin{document}
14:
15: \title{Non-monotonic fluctuation spectra of membranes pinned \\ or tethered discretely to a substrate}
16:
17: \author{Rolf-J\"urgen Merath}
18: \affiliation{
19: II.\ Institut f\"ur Theoretische Physik,
20: Universit\"at Stuttgart,
21: Pfaffenwaldring 57,
22: 70550 Stuttgart,
23: Germany
24: }
25: \affiliation{
26: Max-Planck-Institut f\"ur Metallforschung,
27: Heisenbergstra\ss e 3,
28: 70569 Stuttgart,
29: Germany
30: }
31:
32: \author{Udo Seifert}
33: \affiliation{
34: II.\ Institut f\"ur Theoretische Physik,
35: Universit\"at Stuttgart,
36: Pfaffenwaldring 57,
37: 70550 Stuttgart,
38: Germany
39: }
40:
41:
42: %% \date{September 21, 2005}
43: \date{\today}
44:
45:
46:
47: \begin{abstract}
48: The thermal fluctuation spectrum of a fluid membrane coupled harmonically to a solid support by an array of tethers is calculated.
49: For strong tethers, this spectrum exhibits non-monotonic, anisotropic behavior
50: with a relative maximum at a wavelength about twice the tether distance.
51: The root mean square displacement is evaluated to estimate typical membrane displacements.
52: Possible applications cover pillar-supported or polymer-tethered membranes.
53: \end{abstract}
54:
55:
56: \pacs{82.70.-y, 87.16.Dg}
57: \keywords{supported membrane, fluctuation spectrum}
58:
59: \maketitle
60:
61:
62:
63:
64: %-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
65: {\sl Introduction.} ---
66: Thermal shape fluctuations of fluid membranes in the vicinity of a substrate depend both on the elasticity of the membrane
67: and the specific type of interaction with the substrate~\cite{US_AdvPhys_1997}.
68: For laterally homogeneous substrates the combination of steric, van der Waals and electrostatic interactions
69: determines the strength of these fluctuations.
70: Such spectra, as measured experimentally using video microscopy \cite{Zilker_1987, Raedler_1995},
71: decrease with increasing wave-vector
72: since shorter wave-length fluctuations cost more bending energy.
73: A qualitatively different type of interaction arises from tethering or pinning a membrane at discrete points to a substrate.
74: By adjusting the length of the tethers the mean distance between substrate and membrane can be controlled.
75: As tethering molecules mostly thio\-lipids are used which consist of a lipid tail, a hydrophilic spacer
76: (e.\,g.\ peptides \cite{Naumann_Knoll_Langmuir_2003, Bunjes_Knoll_Langmuir_1997}
77: or polymers \cite{Tanaka_2003_Wiley, Tanaka_2004}) and a sulfur-based linker to the substrate.
78: Likewise, end-functionalized membrane proteins can serve as tethers~\cite{Giess_Knoll_BiophysJ_2004}.
79:
80: Micro- or nano-patterned substrates involving equi\-distant silicon pillars or gold dots
81: have so far mainly been used to study the interaction with cell membranes \cite{Spatz_2004}
82: or an actin cortex \cite{Spatz_2003}
83: but similar experiments with vesicles should become possible as well.
84: If the membrane binds specifically and firmly to these structures, it is effectively pinned at these points.
85: For future biotechnological applications of such systems an understanding of how the thermal shape fluctuations are affected
86: by tethering or pinning is of paramount interest.
87:
88: In this paper, we determine the spectrum of shape fluctuations of such membranes.
89: Surprisingly, we find a large range of parameters for which the fluctuations exhibit a non-monotonic behaviour
90: with a maximum at a wavelength of the order of the tethering or pinning distance.
91: Previous theoretical work on membrane conformations on structured
92: substrates focussed on groove-like or rough substrates \cite{Andelman_Langmuir_1999, Andelman_PRE_2001}
93: or vesicles adhering strongly to chemically patterned substrates~\cite{Lipowsky_JPhysCondMat_2005}.
94: In a formally related theoretical development,
95: motivated by the plasma membrane of red blood cells, fluctuations of a compound system coupling a fluid membrane to the cytoskeleton
96: were investigated~\cite{Gov_2003, Fournier_2004, Gov_2004, Lin_Brown}.
97:
98:
99:
100:
101: %-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
102: \vspace{0.2cm}
103: {\sl The model.} ---
104: The membrane is linked at discrete points $\vec{r}_{\alpha}$ to a substrate by $N$ springs
105: as sketched in Fig.~\ref{fig:Modell-Arten}.
106: \begin{figure}[!b]
107: \hfil \includegraphics[scale=0.63, clip]{Fig1.eps} \hfil
108: \vspace{-0.2cm}
109: \caption{\label{fig:Modell-Arten}Sketch of a membrane tethered to a substrate at \mbox{discrete} sites.
110: A membrane conformation is characterized by the height profile $h(\vec{r})$,
111: which denotes a displacement relative to the flat configuration at a height
112: given by the rest length $l^{~}_0$ of the tethers.
113: }
114: \vspace{-0.12cm}
115: \end{figure}
116: The membrane surface is parameterized by a height profile $h(\vec{r}) \equiv h(x, y)$
117: over a rectangular substrate of extensions $L_x$ and $L_y$.
118: The height $h( \vec{r})$ refers to the displacement with respect to the rest length $l^{~}_0$ of the tethers.
119: The total energy functional
120: \begin{equation} \label{eqn:E_Helfrich+Federn}
121: E \; \equiv \; \frac{\kappa}{2} \int\limits_{0}^{L_x} \!\! \d x \! \int\limits_{0}^{L_y} \!\! \d y \,
122: \left[\nabla^2 h(\vec{r}) \right]^2
123: \; + \; \sum\limits_{\alpha = 1}^{N} \frac{K_{\alpha}}{2} \; h^2(\vec{r_{\alpha}})
124: \end{equation}
125: comprises membrane elasticity with bending rigidity $\kappa$
126: and harmonic tethers with strength $K_\alpha$.
127: Assuming periodic boundary conditions in the lateral direc\-tion, a Fourier expansion of the height profile reads
128: \begin{equation} \label{eqn:Fourierreihe}
129: h(\vec{r}) \: \equiv \: \sum_\vec{k} \,h^{~}_{\vec{k}}\, e^{i\, \vec{k} \cdot \vec{r}}
130: \end{equation}
131: with $\vec{k} \equiv (k_x, k_y)$ and
132: $k_{x,y} = (0, \pm 1, \pm 2, \ldots) \cdot (2 \pi / L_{x,y})$\,.
133: Since $h(\vec{r})$ is real, the complex Fourier coefficients obey $h^{~}_{-\vec{k}} = h_{\vec{k}}^{*}$.
134: The spatial average of the height profile, $h^{~}_\vec{0}$, is real.
135: The energy can be written as
136: \mbox{$E \: = \: \rule[-0.18cm]{0cm}{0.52cm}{}
137: \frac{1}{2} \,\sum_{\vec{k},\vec{k}^\prime} \, h^{*}_{\vec{k}} \, D^{~}_{\vec{k}, \vec{k}^{\prime}} \hspace{0.03cm}
138: h^{~}_{\vec{k}^{\prime}} $}
139: with a non-diagonal coupling matrix $D^{~}_{\vec{k}, \vec{k^{\prime}}}$.
140: Following a scheme introduced by Lin and Brown~\cite{Lin_Brown}, a transformation to \mbox{\emph{independent}} variables leads to
141: \begin{equation} \label{eqn:cMc}
142: E ~ = ~ \vec{c} \cdot \vec{M} \, \vec{c}
143: ~ \equiv ~ \sum\limits_{r, r^\prime} c^{~}_r \: M^{~}_{r, r^\prime} \: c^{~}_{r^\prime} \ \ .
144: \end{equation}
145: The components $c^{~}_r$ (with $r = 0, 1, 2, 3, \ldots$) of the vector
146: $\vec{c}$ can be grouped into three sectors,
147: \mbox{$\vec{c} \equiv ( \frac{1}{2} h^{~}_{\vec{0}}, \; \{ \mathrm{Re}\,h_{\vec{q}} \} , \; \{ \mathrm{Im}\,h_{\vec{q}} \} )$},
148: where $\vec{q}$ runs through all independent, non-vanishing wave-vectors.
149: With the definitions
150: \begin{equation}
151: E^{~}_r \: \equiv \: \left\{ \begin{array}{ll} 0 & \quad \mathrm{for~}r=0 \\
152: \kappa \, L_x L_y \, |\vec{q}(r)|^4 & \quad \mathrm{for~}r>0 \end{array} \right.
153: \end{equation}
154: and
155: \begin{equation}
156: m_r^{\alpha} \: \equiv \: \left\{ \begin{array}{ll}
157: \!\!\! ~~\: \sqrt{2 K_{\alpha}}
158: & ~ \mathrm{for~} r=0 ~\mathrm{(1^{st}~sector)} \hspace*{-4cm} \\
159: \!\!\! ~~\: \sqrt{2 K_{\alpha}} \, \cos(\vec{q}(r) \cdot \vec{r}_{\alpha}) &
160: ~ \mathrm{for~the~2^{nd}~sector} \hspace{-4cm} \\
161: \!\!\! -\, \sqrt{2 K_{\alpha}} \, \sin(\vec{q}(r) \cdot \vec{r}_{\alpha}) & ~ \mathrm{for~the~3^{rd}~sector}
162: \hspace{-4cm} \end{array} \right.
163: \end{equation}
164: the matrix $\vec{M}$
165: can be simplified to take the form
166: \vspace{-0.15cm}
167: \begin{equation} \label{Def.MatrixM}
168: M^{~}_{r,r^{\prime}} \, = \, E^{~}_r \cdot \delta^{~}_{r,r^{\prime}}
169: \:+\: \sum_{\alpha = 1}^{N} \, m_r^{\alpha} \cdot m_{r^{\prime}}^{\alpha} \ \ .
170: \end{equation}
171: The fluctuation spectrum $ \rule[-0.15cm]{0cm}{0.14cm}{} \langle \, |h^{~}_{\vec{k}}|^2 \, \rangle $
172: can then be extracted from the inverse matrix $\vec{M}^{-1}$,
173: where \mbox{$M^{-1}_{r, r^{\prime}} = \frac{2}{k_B T} \, \langle \, c^{~}_r \, c^{~}_{r^\prime} \rangle$~\cite{Merath}}.
174:
175:
176: Below we will compare the spectrum of the discretely tethered membrane with a simplified model called ``continuous springs''
177: where a membrane fluctuates in a laterally homogeneous
178: harmonic potential of strength $\gamma$ with energy functional
179: \begin{equation} \label{eqn:E_with_gamma}
180: E^{\scriptscriptstyle (\gamma)}_{~} \; \equiv \; \frac{1}{2}
181: \int\limits_{0}^{L_x} \!\! \d x \! \int\limits_{0}^{L_y} \!\! \d y \,
182: \Big\{ \kappa \left[\nabla^2 h(\vec{r}) \right]^2
183: \, + \, \gamma \, h^2(\vec{r})
184: \Big\} \ \ .
185: \end{equation}
186: The fluctuation spectrum of this system reads
187: \begin{equation} \label{eq:spectrum_gamma}
188: { \langle \, |h^{~}_\vec{k}|^2 \, \rangle }^{\scriptscriptstyle (\gamma)}
189: \; = \; \frac{k_B T}{L_x L_y \, (\kappa \, |\vec{k}|^4 + \gamma)} \ \ .
190: \end{equation}
191: The overall strength of the discrete and the continuous springs are comparable for
192: $\gamma = \frac{1}{L_x \, L_y} \,\sum_{\alpha = 0}^{N} \, K_{\alpha}$,
193: since these para\-meters lead to the
194: same effective spring \mbox{constant} of the spring brush as a whole.
195:
196:
197:
198:
199:
200: %-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
201: \vspace{0.2cm}
202: {\sl Fluctuation spectra.} ---
203: We focus on a membrane attached to a \emph{quadratic} array
204: \footnote{A \emph{hexagonal} array leads to qualitatively similar results --- up to the different symmetry~\cite{Merath}.}
205: of equally strong ($K_\alpha \equiv K$), equidistant tethers, with $\Delta$ as tether lattice constant,
206: in the limit $L_{x, y} \to \infty$.
207: First, the case of \emph{pinning}, i.\,e., infinitely strong springs ($K \to \infty$), is analyzed.
208: Dimensional analysis yields the spectrum in the form
209: \begin{equation} \label{eq:Def.g}
210: \left.{ \langle \, |h^{~}_{\vec{k}}|^2 \, \rangle }\right|_{\mathrm{pinned}}
211: \; = \; \left.{ \langle\, |h^{~}_{\vec{0}}|^2 \,\rangle }\right|_{\mathrm{pinned}} \cdot g\left(k_x\Delta, \, k_y\Delta \right)
212: \end{equation}
213: with the amplitude at the origin ($\vec{k} = \vec{0}$) given by
214: \begin{equation} \label{eq:Def.s}
215: \left.{ \langle \, |h^{~}_{\vec{0}}|^2 \, \rangle }\right|_{\mathrm{pinned}}
216: \; = \; s \cdot \frac{k_B T}{\kappa \, N} \Delta^2
217: \end{equation}
218: and a numerically determined prefactor $s \simeq 3.9\cdot 10^{-3}\,$.
219: The scaling function $g(k_x\Delta, k_y\Delta)$ is shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:quadrat._1}.
220: \begin{figure}[!tb]
221: \hfil \hspace{-0.30cm} \includegraphics[scale=0.67, clip]{Fig2.eps} \hfil
222: \vspace{-0.2cm}
223: \caption{\label{fig:quadrat._1}The scaling function $g(k_x\Delta, k_y\Delta)$ of the fluctuation spectrum
224: of a fluid membrane pinned by a quadratic array of infinitely strong springs.
225: }
226: \end{figure}
227: The fourfold symmetry of the spectrum reflects the symmetry of the tether array.
228: This spectrum is non-monotonic with four relative maxima and four saddle points.
229: The wavelength at the maxima is
230: $\lambda_{\mathrm{\scriptscriptstyle max}} \simeq 1.11 \cdot 2\, \Delta\,$.
231: Since undulation modes with a wavelength twice the distance $\Delta$ fulfill a pinning condition
232: (i.\,e.\ no displacement at the site of the tethers),
233: a naive guess would yield $\lambda_{\mathrm{\scriptscriptstyle max}} = 2\, \Delta\,$.
234: For a quasi-one-dimensional system (with $k_y \equiv 0$) this would indeed be true~\cite{Merath}.
235: However, for the full two-dimensional case, the interplay of all fluctuation modes
236: apparent in the coupling matrix $\vec{M}$ (\ref{Def.MatrixM})
237: leads to deviations from this naive expectation towards a slightly larger wavelength.
238:
239:
240:
241: From this spectrum, one can derive various one-dimensional spectra shown in
242: Fig.~\ref{fig:cut_hard}.
243: Cuts through the origin and a maximum, and through the origin and a saddle
244: point, respectively, show the non-monotonicity.
245: The \mbox{saddle} point appears at a (by a factor of approximately $\sqrt{2}$\,) larger wavelength than the maxima,
246: corresponding to the larger tether distance in this direction.
247: Furthermore, the average of the 2-d spectrum with respect to the azimuth angle is displayed.
248: In the averaged spectrum, the wavelength of the maximum is
249: $\lambda^{\mathrm{\scriptscriptstyle azi}}_{\mathrm{\scriptscriptstyle max}} \simeq 1.2 \cdot 2\, \Delta\,$.
250: It is larger than the wavelength corresponding to the relative maxi\-mum in the \mbox{2-d} spectrum
251: but smaller than the wavelength corresponding to a saddle point.
252:
253:
254: \begin{figure}[!tb]
255: \hfil \hspace{-0.4cm} \includegraphics[scale=0.70, clip]{Fig3.eps} \hfil
256: \vspace{-0.32cm}
257: \caption{\label{fig:cut_hard}One-dimensional plots of the universal 2-d fluctuation spectrum $g(k_x\Delta, k_y\Delta)$
258: of a membrane pinned to a quadratic array of pinning sites (cf.\ Fig.~\ref{fig:quadrat._1}).
259: Cuts in two main directions, through a maximum (curve 1) and a saddle point (curve 2),
260: of the 2-d spectrum are shown and compared to an azimuthal average (curve 3).
261: Curve 4 shows an azimuthal average of a spectrum for a \emph{hexagonal} arrangement of pinning sites.
262: The closer packed sites induce a six-fold symmetric 2-d spectrum situated below the spectrum of the quadratic system.
263: The constant $s$ for the hexagonal pattern,
264: $s^{\mathrm{(hex.)}} \simeq 2.5\cdot10^{-3}$,
265: is different than in the quadratic case (\ref{eq:Def.s}).
266: For comparability, the hexagonal spectrum is divided by the prefactor
267: $\langle\, |h_{\vec{0}}|^2 \,\rangle^{}_{\mathrm{pinned}}$
268: of the quadratic case (\ref{eq:Def.g}).
269: }
270: \end{figure}
271:
272:
273:
274:
275: For \emph{finite spring constants $K$}, the fluctuation spectrum of a membrane tethered by a quadratic array
276: can be expressed as
277: \begin{equation} \label{eq:Def.f}
278: \langle \, |h^{~}_{\vec{k}}|^2 \, \rangle \; = \;
279: s \, \frac{k_B T}{\kappa \, N} \Delta^2 \cdot f\left(\frac{K \, \Delta^2}{\kappa}, \, k_x\Delta, \, k_y\Delta\right)
280: \end{equation}
281: with a scaling function $f$ that incorporates the spring elasticity.
282: Since $f$ is continuous and $f(\infty, k_x\Delta, k_y\Delta) = g(k_x\Delta, k_y\Delta)$,
283: for sufficiently large spring constants $K$ the non-monotonicity of the spectrum persists.
284: In Fig.~\ref{fig:Vgl.div.K}, the wavelength-dependence of the azimuthally averaged scaling function $f$
285: is shown for different values of $K\,\Delta^2 / \kappa$
286: and compared to the spectrum (\ref{eq:spectrum_gamma}) of
287: a continuous confining harmonic potential.
288: For weak springs, a tethered membrane behaves
289: like a membrane with continuous confinement.
290: For moderately strong spring constants, deviations from the continuous spectrum occur,
291: with the spectrum of the discrete tethering
292: being systematically larger than the continuous one.
293: The positions of the relative maxima in the 2-d spectra depend on $K \Delta^2 / \kappa$.
294: For infinitely strong springs the maximum of the spectrum reaches its lowest possible wavelength.
295: For decreasing spring constants the wavelength corresponding to the relative maxima increases.
296: Finally, below a critical value of the spring constant,
297: $\left. {K \Delta^2 / \kappa }\right|_\mathrm{crit} \, \simeq \, 100 $,
298: the relative maxima disappear and the spectrum decays monotonically.
299:
300:
301:
302: \begin{figure}[!tb]
303: \hfil \hspace{-0.2cm} \includegraphics[scale=0.76, clip]{Fig4.eps} \hfil
304: \vspace{-0.32cm}
305: \caption{\label{fig:Vgl.div.K}The scaling function $f(K \, \Delta^2 / \kappa, \, k_x\Delta, \, k_y\Delta)$
306: for the fluctuation spectrum of a quadratically tethered
307: membrane for different spring stiffnesses
308: (\ref{eq:Def.f}).
309: Azimuthal averages of the 2-d spectra are compared to results from the continuous spring model (\ref{eq:spectrum_gamma}).
310: For comparision, the spectra for the continuous model are scaled by the prefactor
311: $\langle\, |h_{\vec{0}}|^2 \,\rangle^{}_{\mathrm{pinned}}$
312: of the discrete case.
313: Curve 1 shows the azimuthal average of the \mbox{2-d} spectrum for pinning, i.\,e.\
314: infinitely strong springs.
315: In the comparable continuous case ($\gamma \to \infty$), the spectrum vanishes.
316: Curve 2 depicts the spectrum for strong continuous springs:
317: While the ``discrete spectrum'' is still undistinguishable from curve 1,
318: the ``continuous spectrum'' is located far underneath.
319: Curves 3 and 4 give the corresponding discrete and
320: continuous spectrum for moderately strong springs, respectively.
321: For weaker springs the two cases yield nearly the same data shown in curve 5.
322: The spectrum of a free membrane without tethers is shown as curve 6.
323: }
324: \end{figure}
325:
326:
327:
328:
329:
330: %-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
331: \vspace{0.2cm}
332: {\sl Real-space fluctuations.} ---
333: We now determine the average width of the membrane in real space.
334: The height profile can be written as
335: \begin{equation}
336: h(\vec{r}) = 2 \, \vec{w}(\vec{r}) \cdot \vec{c}
337: \end{equation}
338: with~\cite{Lin_Brown}
339: \begin{equation}
340: \vec{w}(\vec{r}) \equiv ( 1, \{ \cos(\vec{q} \cdot \vec{r}) \}, \{ -\sin(\vec{q} \cdot \vec{r}) \} ) \ \ .
341: \end{equation}
342: Given the inverse matrix $\vec{M}^{-1}$, the mean square displacement reads
343: \begin{eqnarray} \label{eq:MSD}
344: \langle \, h^2(\vec{r}) \, \rangle & = &
345: 4 \, \sum\limits_{r, r^\prime} w^{~}_r(\vec{r}) \: \langle \, c^{~}_r \: c^{~}_{r^\prime} \rangle \:
346: w^{~}_{r^\prime}(\vec{r}) \nonumber \\
347: & = & 2 \; k_B T \; \sum\limits_{r, r^\prime} w^{~}_r(\vec{r}) \: M^{-1}_{r, r^\prime} \: w^{~}_{r^\prime}(\vec{r}) \ \ .
348: \end{eqnarray}
349: Typical membrane elongations are represented by the root mean square displacement (RMSD) $\sqrt{\langle h^2(\vec{r}) \rangle}$.
350: Only if the maximum of this RMSD is significantly smaller than the rest length of the springs,
351: this model can be trusted quantitatively since it does not yet include the steric hindrance by the substrate.
352: The maximum of the RMSD is a measure to estimate how far above a substrate the membrane has to be placed
353: in order to avoid undesirable contact or adhesion of the bilayer
354: to the substrate.
355:
356:
357:
358: For \emph{pinning} ($K \to \infty$), we find
359: \begin{equation} \label{eq:Def.u}
360: \left. { \sqrt{\langle \, h^2(\vec{r}) \, \rangle\,} }\right|_{\mathrm{pinned}} \;
361: \equiv \; \sqrt{\frac{k_B T}{\kappa}\,} \Delta \cdot u\left(\displaystyle \frac{x}{\Delta}, \frac{y}{\Delta} \right)
362: \end{equation}
363: with a scaling function $u(x / \Delta, y / \Delta)$
364: shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:Matratzen-Plot}.
365: The maximum of the RMSD in the pinned case occurs in the center of the array and is given by
366: \begin{equation} \label{eq:max_pinned}
367: \left. \mathrm{max}\{ \sqrt{\langle h^2(\vec{r}) \rangle \,} \, \}\right|_{\mathrm{pinned}} \;
368: \equiv \; p \cdot \sqrt{\frac{k_B T}{\kappa}\,} \Delta
369: \end{equation}
370: with a constant $p \simeq 0.124\,$.
371:
372:
373: For \emph{finite} spring constants $K$, the maximum of the RMSD takes the form
374: \begin{equation} \label{eq:Def.w}
375: \mathrm{max}\{ \sqrt{\langle h^2(\vec{r}) \rangle \, } \, \} \; \equiv \; p \: \sqrt{\frac{k_B T}{\kappa}\,} \Delta
376: \cdot w\left( \frac{K \Delta^2}{\kappa} \right)
377: \end{equation}
378: with a scaling function $w$.
379: For weak springs, $w(K \Delta^2 / \kappa)$ approaches
380: $\frac{1}{p \, \sqrt{8\,}} \left( \frac{\kappa}{K \, \Delta^2} \right)^{1/4}$,
381: which follows from the known result
382: \begin{equation}
383: { \langle h^2(\vec{r}) \rangle }^{\scriptscriptstyle (\gamma)}
384: = \, \frac{k_B T}{8 \sqrt{\kappa \, \gamma\,}}
385: \end{equation}
386: for a membrane bound in a harmonic potential~\cite{Safran_1994}.
387: For strong springs, $w$ \mbox{approaches} 1.
388: The cross-over between these two scaling limits occurs around $K\Delta^2 / \kappa = (p \, \sqrt{8\,})^{-4} \simeq 66.1$,
389: where the two asymptotes intersect.
390:
391:
392:
393: \begin{figure}[!tb]
394: \vspace{0.2cm}
395: \hfil \hspace{-0.1cm} \includegraphics[scale=0.64, clip]{Fig5.eps} \hfil
396: \vspace{-0.1cm}
397: \caption{\label{fig:Matratzen-Plot}Scaling function $u(x/\Delta, y/\Delta)$ for the RMSD, $\sqrt{\langle \, h^2(\vec{r}) \, \rangle\,} $,
398: of a membrane pinned at a quadratic array of sites.
399: }
400: \end{figure}
401:
402:
403:
404:
405:
406: %-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
407: \vspace{0.4cm}
408: {\sl Summarizing perspective.} ---
409: Discrete tethering of a membrane to a substrate has a profound implication on the fluctuation spectrum.
410: For strong enough tethers, this spectrum becomes non-monotonic with a maximum determined by the spacing of the tethers.
411: An interpretation of such a spectrum in terms of a continuous model would
412: require a term $- |\sigma| (\nabla h)^2$ in (\ref{eqn:E_with_gamma}) implying
413: a negative ``surface tension''.
414: For sufficiently weak tethers, however, the discrete tethering can indeed be replaced by a continuous harmonic confining potential.
415: The explicit introduction of an additional regular (positive) surface tension,
416: e.\,g.\ caused by the area constraint of a vesicle whose bound part is considered~\cite{US_PRL_1995},
417: into the energy (\ref{eqn:E_Helfrich+Federn}) of our model poses no problems.
418:
419: Our quantitative data on the mean displacements caused by these fluctuations should provide valuable hints for the experimentalists,
420: how large the rest length $l^{~}_0$ of the pillars and tethers has to be in
421: order to avoid contact with the substrate.
422: For a smaller $l_0$, one should
423: include a direct interaction with the substrate
424: which could be attractive due to van-der-Waals interaction and/or
425: repulsive due to steric interactions.
426: In \mbox{either} case one could include an effective potential $V(h)$ to the energy functional.
427: Its mini\-mization will then lead to a laterally inhomogeneous ``ground state'' profile $l^{~}_0(\vec{r})$
428: as in studies of membrane adhesion to structured substrates~\cite{Andelman_PRE_2001}.
429: In another extension of our model one can study the fluctuation of two almost parallel membranes connected by polymeric linkers.
430: The fluctuation of the relative distance between the membranes, i.\,e., the peristaltic mode,
431: is then governed by an effective Hamiltonian (\ref{eqn:E_Helfrich+Federn})
432: and will show the non-monotonic behavior for strong enough linkers as well.
433:
434:
435:
436:
437: %-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
438: \begin{thebibliography}{00}
439: \bibitem{US_AdvPhys_1997} For a review, see U.\ Seifert, Adv.\ Phys.\ {\bf 46}, 13 (1997).
440: \bibitem{Zilker_1987} A.\ Zilker, H.\ Engelhardt, and E.\ Sackmann, J.\ Phys.\ (Paris) {\bf 48}, 2139 (1987).
441: \bibitem{Raedler_1995} J.\,O.\ R\"adler, T.\,J.\ Feder, H.\,H.\ Strey, and E.\ Sackmann, Phys.\ Rev.\ E {\bf 51}, 4526 (1995).
442: \bibitem{Naumann_Knoll_Langmuir_2003} R.\ Naumann, S.\,M.\ Schiller, F.\ Giess, B.\ Grohe, K.\,B.\ Hartmann, I.\ K\"archer, I.\ K\"oper,
443: J.\ L\"ubben, K.\ Vasilev, and W.\ Knoll, Langmuir {\bf 19}, 5435 (2003).
444: \bibitem{Bunjes_Knoll_Langmuir_1997} N.\ Bunjes, E.\,K.\ Schmidt, A.\ Jonczyk, F.\ Rippmann, D.\ Beyer, H.\ Ringsdorf, P.\ Graber, W.\
445: Knoll, and R.\ Naumann, Langmuir {\bf 13}, 6188 (1997).
446: \bibitem{Tanaka_2003_Wiley} A.\ F\"ortig, R.\ Jordan, K.\ Graf, G.\ Schiavon, O.\ Purrucker, and M.\ Tanaka,
447: Macromolecular \mbox{Symposia} {\bf 210}(1), 329 (2003).
448: \bibitem{Tanaka_2004} O.\ Purrucker, A.\ F\"ortig, R.\ Jordan, and M.\ Tanaka, Chem.\ Phys.\ Chem.\ {\bf 5}, 327 (2004).
449: \bibitem{Giess_Knoll_BiophysJ_2004} F.\ Giess, M.\,G.\ Friedrich, J.\,H.\ Heberle, R.\,L.\ Naumann, and W.\ Knoll,
450: Biophys.\ J.\ {\bf 87}, 3213 (2004).
451: \bibitem{Spatz_2004} J.\,P.\ Spatz, Chem.\ Phys.\ Chem.\ {\bf 5}, 383 (2004).
452: \bibitem{Spatz_2003} W.\,H.\ Roos, A.\ Roth, J.\ Konle, H.\ Presting, E.\ \mbox{Sackmann}, and J.\,P.\ Spatz,
453: Chem.\ Phys.\ Chem.\ {\bf 4}, 872 (2003).
454: \bibitem{Andelman_Langmuir_1999} P.\,S.\ Swain and D.\ Andelman, Langmuir {\bf 15}, 8902 (1999).
455: \bibitem{Andelman_PRE_2001} P.\,S.\ Swain and D.\ Andelman, Phys.\ Rev.\ E {\bf 63}, 051911 (2001).
456: \bibitem{Lipowsky_JPhysCondMat_2005} R.\ Lipowsky, M.\ Brinkmann, R.\ Dimova, T.\ Franke, J.\ Kierfeld, and X.\ Zhang,
457: J.\ Phys. Cond.\ Mat.\ {\bf 17} S537 (2005).
458: \bibitem{Gov_2003} N.\ Gov, A.\,G.\ Zilman, and S.\ Safran, Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ {\bf 90}, 228101 (2003).
459: \bibitem{Fournier_2004} J.-B.\ Fournier, D.\ Lacoste, and E.\ Rapha\"el,
460: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ {\bf 92}, 018102 (2004).
461: \bibitem{Gov_2004} N.\ Gov and S.\,A.\ Safran, Phys.\ Rev.\ E {\bf 69}, 011101 (2004).
462: \bibitem{Lin_Brown} L.\,C.-L.\ Lin and F.\,L.\,H.\ Brown, Biophys.\ J.\ {\bf 86} (2), 764 (2004).
463: \bibitem{Merath} R.-J.\ Merath,
464: thesis, Universit\"at Stuttgart (2004).
465: \bibitem{Safran_1994} S.\ A.\ Safran, {\it Statistical Thermodynamics of Surfaces, Interfaces and Membranes},
466: Frontiers in Physics Vol.\ 90 (Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA, 1994).
467: \bibitem{US_PRL_1995} U.\ Seifert, Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ {\bf 74}, 5060 (1995).
468: \end{thebibliography}
469:
470: \end{document}
471:
472: