DTI © 2020 The Authors. This article is published by AboutScience and licensed under Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International (CC BY-NC 4.0). Any commercial use is not permitted and is subject to Publisher’s permissions. Full information is available at www.aboutscience.eu ISSN 1177-3928 Drug Target Insights 2020; 14: 34-47 REVIEW DOI: 10.33393/dti.2020.2185 Interaction of drugs with lipid raft membrane domains as a possible target Hironori Tsuchiya1, Maki Mizogami2 1Asahi University School of Dentistry, Mizuho, Gifu - Japan 2Department of Anesthesiology, Kizawa Memorial Hospital, Minokamo, Gifu - Japan ABSTRACT Introduction: Plasma membranes are not the homogeneous bilayers of uniformly distributed lipids but the lipid complex with laterally separated lipid raft membrane domains, which provide receptor, ion channel and enzyme proteins with a platform. The aim of this article is to review the mechanistic interaction of drugs with membrane lipid rafts and address the question whether drugs induce physicochemical changes in raft-constituting and raft- surrounding membranes. Methods: Literature searches of PubMed/MEDLINE and Google Scholar databases from 2000 to 2020 were con- ducted to include articles published in English in internationally recognized journals. Collected articles were inde- pendently reviewed by title, abstract and text for relevance. Results: The literature search indicated that pharmacologically diverse drugs interact with raft model membranes and cellular membrane lipid rafts. They could physicochemically modify functional protein-localizing membrane lipid rafts and the membranes surrounding such domains, affecting the raft organizational integrity with the resul- tant exhibition of pharmacological activity. Raft-acting drugs were characterized as ones to decrease membrane fluidity, induce liquid-ordered phase or order plasma membranes, leading to lipid raft formation; and ones to increase membrane fluidity, induce liquid-disordered phase or reduce phase transition temperature, leading to lipid raft disruption. Conclusion: Targeting lipid raft membrane domains would open a new way for drug design and development. Since angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 receptors which are a cell-specific target of and responsible for the cel- lular entry of novel coronavirus are localized in lipid rafts, agents that specifically disrupt the relevant rafts may be a drug against coronavirus disease 2019. Keywords: Drug target, Fluidity, Lipid raft, Membrane domain, Membrane interaction Received: September 17, 2020 Accepted: November 11, 2020 Published online: December 22, 2020 Corresponding author: Hironori Tsuchiya Asahi University School of Dentistry 1851 Hozumi, Mizuho, Gifu 501-0296 - Japan tsuchi-hiroki16@dent.asahi-u.ac.jp of the membrane structures (2), whereas caveolae are a sub- set of lipid rafts and organizationally maintained by charac- teristic protein caveolins (3). Lipid rafts in a liquid-ordered (L o ) phase coexist with the bulk of membranes in a liquid- disordered (L d ) phase (4). Lipid raft membrane domains play an important role in cellular signal transduction and traf- ficking by compartmentalizing membranes and providing functional membrane proteins with a platform (4-7). Phar- macologically relevant receptors, ion channels and enzymes are localized or cluster in membrane lipid rafts and caveolae (8-11). Given the localization of receptors, ion channels and en- zymes in membrane lipid rafts, the mode of drug action is first interpretable in a simple manner of receptor/channel/ enzyme and ligand interaction as known in the conventional mechanistic theory. The second possibility is that drugs may act on membrane lipids to affect the organizational integrity of lipid rafts, resulting in modulation of the activity of recep- tors, ion channels and enzymes embedded in membrane do- mains. It is of much interest to know whether drugs interact Introduction Since Singer and Nicolson proposed a fluid mosaic model, the concept of membrane organization has progressively changed, that is, plasma membranes are not the homoge- neous bilayers of uniformly distributed lipids but the lipid complex with laterally separated membrane domains such as lipid rafts and caveolae (1). Lipid rafts are small (10-200 nm), heterogeneous, dynamic, and cholesterol- and sphingolipid- enriched membrane domains that are distinct from the rest Tsuchiya and Mizogami 35 © 2020 The Authors. Published by AboutScience preferentially with lipid rafts compared with non-raft overall membrane lipid bilayers and whether such interaction at a membrane lipid level is linked to pharmacological and cyto- toxic effects of drugs. While cholesterol is essential to raft and caveola formation, the regulatory effects of membrane domains on receptors and ion channels were confirmed by depleting cholesterol in plasma membranes (12-15). The purpose of the present study is to review the interac- tion of drugs with membrane lipid rafts and the membranes surrounding such domains by searching scientific articles from a mechanistic point of view in order to gain new in- sights into a drug target. Since various proteins embedded in membranes are functionally modulated by membrane fluid- ity, order and phase transition, the focus of our review is on addressing the question whether drugs modify the physico- chemical properties of raft-constituting and raft-surrounding membranes to affect the formation, stability and integrity of lipid raft membrane domains. Methods The present review is based on articles that were re- trieved from PubMed/MEDLINE and Google Scholar by searching databases from 2000 to 2020. The publications earlier than 2000 were exceptionally cited if they are essen- tial to advancing the discussion. Research papers published in English in internationally recognized journals and online journals were preferred, but review articles were addition- ally used to deepen understanding of the concept of plasma membranes and the mode of drug action. For reviewing as diverse drugs as possible without confining to a specific class of drug, the literature searches were carried out using the following terms or combinations thereof: “lipid raft,” “cave- ola,” “membrane domain,” “membrane interaction,” “fluid- ity,” “receptor,” “channel” and “enzyme.” Collected articles were independently reviewed by title, abstract and text for relevance with preference to more recent publications. Results and discussion Drug and raft interaction methodology Since the methodology of drug and membrane raft inter- action is essential to facilitate readers’ understanding of in- dividual studies, representative experiments are mentioned as follows. In in vitro experiments, drugs are subjected to the reac- tion with raft model (raft-like) membranes or liposomes that mimic the lipid composition and property of lipid raft micro domains (16,17). Ternary lipid membranes are used as a raft model, which is frequently prepared with an equimolar mixture of 1-palmitoyl-2-oleoylphosphatidylcholine (POPC), sphingomyelin (SM) and cholesterol (18), in which choles- terol functions as a spacer between sphingolipid hydrocar- bon chains and as a glue to keep the raft assembly together (19). Such raft model membranes have the advantage that the membrane effects of drugs can be determined more eas- ily than in vivo experiments (20). Lipid rafts isolated from cells are also used experimentally. Since lipid rafts are relatively insoluble in cold non-ionic detergents, cells are treated with Triton X-100 and membrane lipid rafts are fractionated by su- crose density gradient centrifugation (SDGC) (21). In in vivo experiments, human and animal subjects are treated with drugs, followed by SDGC to isolate cellular mem- brane lipid rafts. Cholesterol is not only a critical determinant for membrane fluidity but also an essential component to form the L o membrane domains. Cellular cholesterol con- tents are manipulated by treating animals with cholesterol metabolic inhibitors, culturing cells in cholesterol-deficient media and using cholesterol-depleting agents. Methyl-β- cyclodextrin (MBC), to form a 2:1 complex with cholesterol (22), is most widely used for cholesterol depletion (23). Drug-induced physicochemical or biophysical changes in raft model membranes and membrane lipid rafts are deter- mined by fluorescence polarization (FP) or anisotropy (FA), differential scanning calorimetry (DSC), nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR) spectroscopy, neutron diffraction (ND), X- ray diffraction (XD) and their complementary combination. General anesthetics General anesthetics and their related sedatives, anxiolyt- ics and adjuncts act on inhibitory γ-aminobutyric acid type A (GABA A ) receptors and excitatory N-methyl-D- aspartate (NMDA) receptors (24). Intravenous and inhalational an- esthetics are a positive allosteric modulator or a direct activator of GABA A receptors to enhance their inhibitory functions, inducing general anesthesia, sedation, anxiolysis and convulsion cessation (25). Inhalational anesthetics are also a non-competitive antagonist of NMDA receptors to re- duce neuronal excitation, producing analgesic, sedative and anesthesia-maintaining effects (26,27). These anesthesia- relevant GABA A receptors and NMDA receptors are associ- ated with lipid raft membrane domains (28,29). Results of the literature search indicated that general anesthetics in- teract with membrane lipid rafts and membranes as shown in Table I. Intravenous anesthetic propofol FP experiments demonstrated that propofol structure- specifically interacts with binary liposomal membranes pre- pared with 80 mol% POPC and 20 mol% cholesterol (30) and quinary liposomal membranes prepared with 55 mol% phospholipids (POPC, SM, 1-palmitoyl-2-oleoylphosphati- dylethanolamine (POPE) and 1-palmitoyl-2-oleoylphospha- tidylserine (POPS)) and 45 mol% cholesterol (31), resulting in an increase of membrane fluidity at clinically relevant 0.125-10 μM. L o and L d phase equilibrium is present in giant plasma membrane vesicles (GPMVs) isolated from rat baso- phil leukemia cells, which are used as a model of membrane heterogeneity for lipid rafts. Gray et al treated GPMVs with propofol and its structural analogs to examine their effects on liquid-liquid transition by analyzing the lateral distribution of fluorescent probe DiI-C 12 microscopically (32). Propofol re- duced the critical transition temperature at 2.5-10 μM, but not 2,6-di-tert-butylphenol without the anesthetic activity at the same concentrations. Therefore, propofol is considered Interaction of drugs with lipid rafts36 © 2020 The Authors. Published by AboutScience to decrease the magnitude of membrane heterogeneity structure-specifically, affecting receptor and ion channel pro- teins sensitive to raft heterogeneity. While propofol is known to produce bronchodilatation, the airway relaxation involves a decrease of Ca2+ concentrations in airway smooth muscle cells that are regulated by caveolae. By exposing human air- way smooth muscle cells to propofol at 10 and 30 μM, Grim et al found that propofol increases in membrane caveolae and reduces the intracellular Ca2+ concentration response to 10 μM histamine (33). They also suggested that propofol may induce caveolar disruption and caveolin-1 expression decrease. Inhalational anesthetics Patel et al investigated the membrane effects of isoflu- rane using different membrane systems such as POPC/cho- lesterol liposomal membranes, erythrocyte ghosts and brain endothelial cell-mimetic membranes (34). FA measurements indicated that isoflurane increases the membrane fluidity at 1 and 5 mM. Turkyilmaz et al prepared large unilamellar ves- icles (LUVs) with 1,2-dipalmitoylphosphatidylcholine (DPPC) and cholesterol to be 2.5 mol% or 37.5 mol% cholesterol- containing DPPC membranes to verify the membrane effects of inhalational anesthetics (35). Isoflurane and halothane weakened and strengthened the sterol-phospholipid associa- tion in cholesterol-rich L o phase membranes and in choles- terol-poor L d phase membranes, respectively, at 2.5-12 mM. In ND and XD experiments of Weinrich et al, halothane was subjected to the reaction with multilayer membranes that were prepared with an equimolar mixture of DPPC and 1,2-dilauroylphosphatidylcholine (DLPC) to form distinct DPPC-rich ordered and DLPC-rich fluid phase (36). Halothane reduced the transition temperature by about 5°C at 1.5 mol% corresponding to about twice the minimum alveolar concen- tration (MAC) for human anesthesia, but not non-anesthetic TABLE I - Interaction of general anesthetics with lipid raft membrane domains and membranes Drug class Drug Membrane Induced membrane modification Reference Intravenous anesthetic Propofol (0.125-1.0 μM) Binary liposomal membranes (80 mol% POPC and 20 mol% cholesterol) Increased membrane fluidity 30 Intravenous anesthetic Propofol (10 μM) Quinary liposomal membranes (55 mol% phospholipids (POPC, SM, POPE and POPS) and 45 mol% cholesterol) Increased membrane fluidity 31 Intravenous anesthetic Propofol (2.5-10 μM) GPMVs isolated from rat basophil leukemia cells Reduced the critical transition temperature structure-specifically 32 Intravenous anesthetic Propofol (10 and 30 μM) Human airway smooth muscle cell membranes Reduced the intracellular Ca2+ concentration responses to 10 μM histamine, disrupted caveolae and decreased caveolin-1 expression 33 Inhalational anesthetic Isoflurane (1 and 5 mM) POPC/cholesterol liposomal membranes, erythrocyte ghosts and brain endothelial cell-mimetic membranes Increased membrane fluidity 34 Inhalational anesthetic Isoflurane (2.5-12 mM) LUVs (62.5 mol% DPPC and 37.5 mol% cholesterol) Weakened the sterol-phospholipid association in cholesterol-rich L o phase membranes 35 Inhalational anesthetic Halothane (1.5 mol%) Multilayer membranes (DPPC and DLPC, 1:1 molar ratio) Reduced the transition temperature by about 5°C 36 Inhalational anesthetic Xenon (4.6-fold MAC) Nitrous oxide (4.6-fold MAC) Halothane (three- to fivefold MAC) Isoflurane (three- to fivefold MAC) Raft model membranes (DOPC, SM and cholesterol, 1:1:0.2 molar ratio) Increased the L d phase Decreased the relative intensity of L o to L d phase 37 Barbiturate Rats injected with sodium pentobarbital (50 mg/kg, i.p.) Lipid rafts isolated from rat brains 15 minutes after drug injection Reduced the transition temperature 38 DLPC = 1,2-dilauroylphosphatidylcholine; DOPC = 1,2-dioleoylphosphatidylcholine; DPPC = 1,2-dipalmitoylphosphatidylcholine; GPMV = giant plasma mem- brane vesicle; LUV = large unilamellar vesicle; MAC = minimum alveolar concentration; POPC = 1-palmitoyl-2-oleoylphosphatidylcholine; POPE = 1-palmitoyl- 2-oleoylphosphatidylethanolamine; POPS = 1-palmitoyl-2-oleoylphosphatidylserine; SM = sphingomyelin. Tsuchiya and Mizogami 37 © 2020 The Authors. Published by AboutScience 1,2-dichlorohexafluorocyclobutane even at fivefold MAC. Weinrich and Worcester determined the effects of differ- ent anesthetics on liquid phase distribution in raft model membranes prepared with 1,2-dioleoylphosphatidylcholine (DOPC), SM and cholesterol (1:1:0.2 molar ratio) by ND and XD analysis (37). Xenon and nitrous oxide increased the L d phase at 4.6-fold MAC, and halothane and isoflurane de- creased the relative intensity of L o to L d phase at three- to fivefold MAC. Barbiturate Pentobarbital is intravenously and intraperitoneally ad- ministered especially in veterinary anesthesia or sedation. Sierra-Valdez et al characterized the in vivo effects of pento- barbital on rat brain lipid rafts, which were isolated 15 min after injecting rats with sodium pentobarbital at 50 mg/kg intraperitoneally (38). DSC analysis revealed that pentobar- bital reduces the transition temperature from L o to L d phase. Membranous sodium channel blocker local anesthetics Local anesthetics reversibly block voltage-gated sodium (Nav) channels that are responsible for the initiation and propagation of action potentials in excitable cells, inhibiting sensory and motor functions (39). Among nine distinct Nav channels (Nav1.1 to Nav1.9) cloned from mammals, Nav1.8 channel plays a crucial role in pain transmission and this iso- form is implicated as a site of action for anesthetic and anal- gesic drugs. While Nav channels are present in caveolae-type and non-caveolae-type lipid rafts, Nav1.8 channel clustering in such membrane domains is essential to the propagation of action potentials in nociceptive axons (40,41). Nav1.8 chan- nels are associated with lipid rafts in rat dorsal root gangli- onic neurons, but cholesterol depletion induces dissociation between Nav1.8 channels and lipid rafts (42). Results of the literature search on the interaction of local anesthetics with membrane lipid rafts and membranes are shown in Table II. Kamata et al incubated human erythrocytes with lidocaine at 18.4 mM and prepared erythrocyte ghosts, followed by SDGC fractionation and immunoblotting analysis for flotillin-1 (caveolae-associated integral membrane protein) that is assumed to stabilize lipid rafts (43). Lidocaine reversibly disrupted erythrocyte membrane lipid rafts and abolished flotillin-1 in lipid rafts together with depleting cholesterol. Bandeiras et al treated LUVs prepared with POPC, SM and cholesterol (1:1:1 molar ratio) with tetracaine and lidocaine, and then evaluated their membrane effects by DSC and phos- phorus NMR spectroscopy (44). Tetracaine and lidocaine in- creased the fluidity of raft-like membranes at 25 and 69 mM, TABLE II - Interaction of membranous sodium channel blocker local anesthetics with lipid raft membrane domains and membranes Drug class Drug Membrane Induced membrane modification Reference Local anesthetic Lidocaine (18.4 mM) Human erythrocyte membranes Disrupted membrane rafts reversely and abolished flotillin-1 in lipid rafts 43 Local anesthetic Tetracaine (25 mM) Lidocaine (69 mM) LUVs (POPC, SM and cholesterol, 1:1:1 molar ratio) Increased the fluidity of raft-like membranes 44 Local anesthetic Dibucaine (0.05 and 0.2 mM) Raft-like membranes (POPC, DPPC and cholesterol, 2:1:1 molar ratio) Reduced the miscibility temperature of L o and L d phase separation 45 Local anesthetic Lidocaine (10-20 mol%) Tetracaine (10-20 mol%) Raft-like membranes (POPC, DPPC and cholesterol, 2:2:1 molar ratio) Reduced the miscibility temperature of L o and L d phase separation and decreased the line tension at L o /L d phase boundary 46 Local anesthetic Dibucaine (0.2 mM) Tetracaine (0.2 mM) LUVs (POPC, SM and cholesterol, 16:43:41 molar ratio) Increased the fluidity of L o phase membranes, but not L d phase membranes 47 Local anesthetic Lidocaine (50-200 μM) Bupivacaine (50-200 μM) Ropivacaine (50-200 μM) Prilocaine (50-200 μM) SUVs (DOPC, POPE, SM, CB and cholesterol, 16.7:16.7:16.7:16.7:33.3; DOPC, SM and cholesterol, 33.3:33.3:33.3; and DOPC, POPE, POPS, SM and cholesterol, 5:5:10:40:40 molar ratio) Increased the membrane fluidity with the relative potency being bupivacaine > ropivacaine > lidocaine > prilocaine More effective in interacting with the reference biomimetic membranes than the raft model membranes 49 Local anesthetic Bupivacaine enantiomers (5-50 μM) SUVs (POPC, POPE, POPS, POPI, SM, cardiolipin and cholesterol, 25:16:3:3:3:10:40 molar ratio) Increased the fluidity of biomimetic membranes with the relative potency being R(+)-bupivacaine > racemic bupivacaine > S(–)-bupivacaine 50 CB = cerebroside; DOPC = 1,2-dioleoylphosphatidylcholine; DPPC = 1,2-dipalmitoylphosphatidylcholine; LUV = large unilamellar vesicle; POPC = 1-palmitoyl- 2-oleoylphosphatidylcholine; POPE = 1-palmitoyl-2-oleoylphosphatidylethanolamine; POPI = 1-palmitoyl-2-oleoylphosphatidylinositol; POPS = 1-palmitoyl- 2-oleoylphosphatidylserine; SM = sphingomyelin; SUV = small unilamellar vesicle. Interaction of drugs with lipid rafts38 © 2020 The Authors. Published by AboutScience respectively. Yoshida et al prepared lipid bilayer membranes with DOPC, DPPC and cholesterol (2:1:1 molar ratio) to be laterally separated into L o and L d phase together with label- ing the membranes with fluorescent probe rhodamine DHPE (dihexadecanoyl-sn-glycero-3-phosphoethanolamine) (45). After treating the membrane preparations with dibucaine at 0.05 and 0.2 mM, they observed the raft-like membrane do- mains by fluorescence microscopy at 20-40°C to determine changes in miscibility temperature of the L o and L d phase separation and in line tension at the L o /L d phase boundary. Dibucaine reduced the miscibility temperature, which was accompanied by the line tension decrease. Dibucaine also made the L o domains smaller at 25°C, although most mem- branes were present without such raft-like domains at above 25°C. In a similar microscopic experiment using liposomes prepared with DOPC, DPPC and cholesterol (2:2:1 molar ratio), lidocaine and tetracaine reduced the miscibility tem- perature of ternary membranes at 10-20 mol% relative to liposomal lipids, but not binary membranes without choles- terol (46). Both local anesthetics also decreased the line ten- sion at the L o /L d phase boundary. Kinoshita et al performed FA experiments to reveal the effects of local anesthetics on raft-like L o /non-raft L d phase membranes by using LUVs that were prepared with DOPC, SM and cholesterol (16:43:41 and 65:16:19 in molar ratio for L o phase and L d phase, re- spectively) (47). Dibucaine disordered the lipid packing or in- creased the fluidity of L o phase membranes at 0.2 mM more potently than tetracaine, whereas dibucaine and tetracaine showed no significant effects on L d phase membranes. How- ever, these studies (43-47) used drug concentrations much higher than clinically and experimentally relevant ones (48) and the tested dibucaine and tetracaine are not widely used in clinical anesthesia. Tsuchiya et al prepared small unilamellar vesicles (SUVs) with DOPC, POPE, SM, cerebroside (CB) and cholesterol (16.7:16.7:16.7:16.7:33.3 molar ratio); DOPC, SM and cho- lesterol (33.3:33.3:33.3 molar ratio); and DOPC, POPE, POPS, SM and cholesterol (5:5:10:40:40 molar ratio) for raft model membranes, and POPC, POPE, POPS, 1-palmitoyl- 2-oleoylphosphatidylinositol (POPI), SM, cardiolipin and cholesterol (25:16:3:3:3:10:40 molar ratio) for reference biomimetic membranes (49,50). They treated these mem- brane preparations with lidocaine, bupivacaine, ropivacaine and prilocaine at anesthetic and cardiotoxic concentrations, followed by FP measurements. All the tested anesthetics in- teracted with raft model and biomimetic membranes to in- crease the membrane fluidity at 50-200 μM with the relative potency being bupivacaine > ropivacaine > lidocaine > prilo- caine (49). They were more effective in interacting with the reference membranes than the raft membranes. Biomimetic membranes showed different interactivity with the relative potency being R(+)-bupivacaine > racemic bupivacaine > S(–)-bupivacaine at 5-50 μM, being consistent with the rank order of their anesthetic and cardiotoxic effects (50). How- ever, raft model membranes did not exhibit significant en- antioselectivity as the reference biomimetic membranes. These results may suggest that lipid rafts are less likely to contribute at least to the enantioselective effects of local anesthetics. Membranous receptor- and enzyme-acting drugs Results of the literature search on the interaction of receptor-acting adrenergic and opioid drugs and enzyme- acting anti-inflammatory drugs with membrane lipid rafts and membranes are shown in Table III. Beta-adrenergic blockers Beta-blockers are perioperatively used to reduce the risk of myocardial ischemia, arrhythmia and cardiac morbidity during anesthesia. Lipid raft/caveola domains encompass β 2 - adrenergic receptors, but not β 1 -adrenergic receptors for sig- nal transduction (12,51). Mizogami et al prepared SUVs with POPC, SM, POPE, CB and cholesterol (1:1:1:1:2 molar ratio) to compare the membrane effects between different β-blockers at 0.2 and 1 mM by measuring FP (52). Nonselective pro- pranolol most potently increased the fluidity of raft model membranes, followed by alprenolol and oxprenolol, but not β 1 -selective atenolol, metoprolol and esmolol. In a similar FP study using SUVs prepared with 33.3 mol% cholesterol and 66.7 mol% phospholipids consisting of equimolar DOPC, SM, POPE and CB, nonselective propranolol and alprenolol in- creased the fluidity of raft model membranes at 20-200 μM, whereas β 1 -selective landiolol and esmolol were not effective even at 200 μM (53). Nonselective β-blockers could reduce the activity of β 2 -adrenergic receptors by fluidizing the mem- brane lipid rafts together with antagonizing β 1 -adrenergic re- ceptors by interacting with β 1 -adrenergic receptor proteins, producing nonselective blockade of β-adrenergic receptors. In contrast, selective β 1 -blockers do not affect β 2 -adrenergic receptors through interaction with lipid rafts, thereby en- hancing the selectivity for β 1 -adrenergic receptors. Beta-blockers, particularly β 1 -selective agents, have been used for treating hypertension (54). Although the altered vascular signaling processes are implicated in hypertension, whether lipid rafts/caveolae are responsible for such patho- genic events remains unclear (55), so no significant inter- action between antihypertensive drugs and lipid rafts was found in the literature. Alpha-adrenergic agonists Alpha 2 -agonists with the sedative, analgesic, anesthetic- sparing and sympatholytic activity are used as an adjuvant for anesthesia. Mizogami and Tsuchiya performed FP experi- ments to investigate their effects on SUVs that were prepared with 33.3 mol% cholesterol and 66.7 mol% phospholipids (consisting of equimolar DOPC, SM, POPE and CB) to be raft model membranes and with cholesterol and phospholipids of different compositions to be neuro-mimetic and cardiomyo- cyte-mimetic membranes (56). Dexmedetomidine interacted with the non-raft membranes to increase their fluidity most potently at 5-200 μM, followed by levomedetomidine and clonidine. However, these α 2 -agonists exerted much weaker effects on the raft model membranes so that dexmedetomi- dine and levomedetomidine did not show large difference in membrane interactivity despite being significantly different in sedative activity between medetomidine enantiomers. Tsuchiya and Mizogami 39 © 2020 The Authors. Published by AboutScience TABLE III - Interaction of membranous receptor- and enzyme-acting drugs with lipid raft membrane domains and membranes Drug class Drug Membrane Induced membrane modification Reference Adrenergic receptor-acting drug Nonselective β-blockers (0.2 and 1 mM) Selective β 1 -blockers (0.2 and 1 mM) SUVs (POPC, SM, POPE, CB and cholesterol, 1:1:1:1:2 molar ratio) Nonselective propranolol most potently increased the membrane fluidity, followed by alprenolol and oxprenolol, but not β 1 -selective atenolol, metoprolol and esmolol 52 Adrenergic receptor-acting drug Nonselective β-blockers (20-200 μM) Selective β 1 -blockers (20-200 μM) SUVs (33.3 mol% cholesterol and 66.7 mol% phospholipids of equimolar DOPC, SM, POPE and CB) Nonselective propranolol and alprenolol increased the membrane fluidity, but not β 1 -selective landiolol and esmolol 53 Adrenergic receptor-acting drug Alpha 2 -agonists (5-200 μM) SUVs (33.3 mol% cholesterol and 66.7 mol% phospholipids (DOPC, SM, POPE and CB)) Dexmedetomidine increased the fluidity of non-raft membranes most potently, followed by levomedetomidine and clonidine, although the effects on raft model membranes were much weaker without showing large difference between medetomidine enantiomers 56 Opioid receptor- acting drug Rats injected with morphine (25 mg/kg, i.p.) Rats injected with naloxone (2 mg/kg, i.p.) Morphine (10 nM and 10 μM) Naloxone (1 nM) Hippocampus and caudate membranes Hippocampus and caudate membranes Rat brain membrane preparations Rat brain membrane preparations Increased the membrane fluidity Decreased the membrane fluidity Increased the membrane fluidity Reversed the membrane-fluidizing effects of 10 nM morphine 59 Opioid receptor- acting drug Codeine (0.1 M) N-Methylcodeine (0.1 M) DPPC MLVs Reduced the phase transition temperature 60 Opioid receptor- acting drug Etorphine (10 nM) Mice injected with etorphine (5 μg/kg, s.c.) Human embryonic kidney cells expressing μ-receptors Hippocampi isolated after drug injection Translated μ-receptors from lipid rafts to non-raft regions 61 Cyclooxygenase- acting anti- inflammatory drug Aspirin (3 mM) DPPC bilayer membranes containing 32.5 mol% cholesterol Increased the membrane fluidity Disrupted the membrane organization and prevented raft formation 63 Cyclooxygenase- acting anti- inflammatory drug Aspirin (10 mol%) MLVs (70 mol% DMPC and 30 mol% cholesterol) Bound to raft-like L o phase domains and disturbed their organization 64 Cyclooxygenase- acting anti- inflammatory drug Indomethacin (5 μM) Naproxen (25 μM) Aspirin (50 μM) Ibuprofen (150 μM) Baby hamster kidney cells Affected the organization of raft-like ordered lipid and protein membrane nanoclusters 65 CB = cerebroside; DMPC = 1,2-dimyristoylphosphatidylcholine; DOPC = 1,2-dioleoylphosphatidylcholine; DPPC = 1,2-dipalmitoylphosphatidylcholine; MLV = multilamellar vesicle; POPC = 1-palmitoyl-2-oleoylphosphatidylcholine; POPE = 1-palmitoyl-2-oleoylphosphatidylethanolamine; SM = sphingomyelin; SUV = small unilamellar vesicle. Interaction of drugs with lipid rafts40 © 2020 The Authors. Published by AboutScience The mechanistic relevance of lipid rafts to the enantioselec- tive effects of α 2 -agonists is inconclusive as Morris et al re- ported that α 1 -adrenergic receptors, but not α 2 -adrenergic receptors, occupy membrane lipid rafts (57). Opioid analgesics Morphine and its related drugs act on inhibitory opioid receptors of μ, κ and δ subtypes expressed in nociceptive neuronal circuits. Mu-receptors responsible for the effects of opioid analgesics and antagonists are located within lipid raft/caveola membrane domains (58). Heron et al performed in vivo experiments to inject rats with opioids intraperitoneally and in vitro experiments to subject membranes prepared from rat brains to the reaction with opioids, followed by FP measurements (59). Morphine increased the fluidity of hippocampus and caudate mem- branes from rats injected at 25 mg/kg (i.p.) and the fluidity of the membrane preparations at 10 nM and 10 μM. In contrast, opioid antagonist naloxone decreased the membrane fluid- ity of the same brain regions at 2 mg/kg (i.p.) and reversed the in vitro membrane-fluidizing effect of 10 nM morphine at 1 nM. Budai et al evaluated the effects of different opioids on DPPC multilamellar vesicles (MLVs) by DSC and electron paramagnetic resonance (EPR) spectroscopy (60). Codeine and N-methylcodeine reduced the phase transition tempera- ture of DPPC membranes at 0.1 M. Zheng et al treated HEK (human embryonic kidney) 293 cells expressing μ-receptors with or subcutaneously injected mice with opioid agonists (61). SDGC cell fractions and hippocampus isolates demon- strated that etorphine of 10 nM and 5 μg/kg (s.c.) translo- cate μ-receptors from lipid rafts to non-raft regions as well as cholesterol-depleting MBC. Anti-inflammatory drugs Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs are considered to exert therapeutic and adverse effects by inhibiting cyclooxy- genase (COX)-2 and COX-1, respectively. COX-2 is localized in lipid raft/caveola membrane domains and associated with caveolin-1 (62). Alsop et al studied the effects of aspirin on different DPPC/cholesterol bilayer membrane systems by Langmuir- Blodgett, DSC and ND experiments (63). Aspirin (3 mM) increased the membrane fluidity of DPPC membranes con- taining 32.5 mol% cholesterol, disrupted the membrane organization and prevented the formation of L o phase lipid rafts. In the following neutron scattering experiments and molecular dynamics simulations, they prepared MLVs with 70 mol% 1,2-dimyristoylphosphatidylcholine (DMPC) and 30 mol% cholesterol to study the membrane effect of as- pirin (64). Aspirin bound to raft-like L o phase domains and disrupted their organization at 10 mol%. Zhou et al reported that 5 μM indomethacin, 25 μM naproxen, 50 μM aspirin and 150 μM ibuprofen acted on BHK (baby hamster kidney) cells to affect the organization of raft-like ordered lipid and protein membrane nanoclusters by interacting with plasma membranes (65). Anticancer drugs In addition to conventional mechanistic effects, antican- cer drugs exhibit apoptosis-inducing activity. Lipid rafts con- tribute to induction of the apoptosis selective for cancer cells (66). Alkylphospholipids, platinum(II) complex and antibiotics are presumed to act on lipid rafts as a membrane gateway to induce apoptosis (67). Alves et al recently published an excellent review on the biophysics of cancer cells and the rel- evance of drug and membrane interaction to cancer therapy (68). Results of the literature search on the interaction of an- ticancer drugs with membrane lipid rafts and membranes are shown in Table IV. Alkylphospholipids Ausili et al treated MLVs prepared with POPC, SM and cholesterol (1:1:1 molar ratio) with edelfosine at 10-20 mol% relative to membrane lipids, followed by DSC, XD and NMR analysis (69). Edelfosine altered the raft organization and in- duced the appearance of a sharp phase transition at 20 mol%, suggesting a fluidity increase in membrane lipid rafts. When incubating with human acute T-cell leukemia (Jurkat T) cells, edelfosine colocalized in lipid rafts at concentrations higher than 20 mol%. 10-(Octyloxy) decyl-2-(trimethylammonium) ethyl phosphate (ODPC) with the cytotoxic activity against cancer cell lines inhibits the proliferation of leukemia cells by inducing apoptosis. Gomide et al prepared giant unilamellar vesicles (GUVs) with DOPC, SM and cholesterol (1:1:1 molar ra- tio) to examine the effects of perifosine and ODPC on lipid rafts (70). In fluorescence microscopic observations, perifosine and ODPC disrupted membrane raft domains in GUVs so that the domains disappeared in less than 1 min after treatment at 100 μM. Castro et al treated MLVs or unilamellar vesicles (ULVs) prepared with POPC, N-palmitoyl-SM and cholesterol (1:1:1 molar ratio) with anticancer alkylphospholipids, followed by FA measurements (71). Edelfosine and miltefosine were dem- onstrated to increase the fluidity of raft model membranes at 5-10 mol% relative to membrane lipids. Wnętrzak et al studied the effects of synthetic phospholipid analog erucylphospho- choline on raft-mimic Langmuir monolayers composed of SM and cholesterol (2:1 molar ratio) (72). Erucylphosphocholine increased the membrane raft fluidity at higher than 0.3 mol% relative to membrane lipids and weakened the interaction be- tween cholesterol and SM. In a thermodynamic study using the same Langmuir monolayers, anticancer 2-hydroxyoleic acid increased the membrane fluidity of raft-mimic monolayers at higher than 0.1 mol% relative to membrane lipids (73). Cisplatin Cisplatin acts on plasma membranes to trigger the Fas death receptor pathway at a membrane level (74). Lacour et al treated human colon carcinoma (HT29) cells (7 × 105 cells) with cisplatin at 5 μg/mL for 0.25-4 hours (75). The cells were subjected to 12-DSA (12-doxylstearic acid) spin label- ing followed by EPR spectroscopic analysis or cell lysis with Triton X-100 followed by SDGC fractionation and immunoblot Tsuchiya and Mizogami 41 © 2020 The Authors. Published by AboutScience TABLE IV - Interaction of anticancer drugs with lipid raft membrane domains and membranes Drug class Drug Membrane Induced membrane modification Reference Alkylphospholipid Edelfosine (≥20 mol%) MLVs (POPC, SM and cholesterol, 1:1:1, molar ratio) Human acute T-cell leukemia cells Increased the fluidity of lipid rafts Colocalized in membrane lipid rafts 69 Alkylphospholipid Perifosine (100 μM) ODPC (100 μM) GUVs (DOPC, SM and cholesterol, 1:1:1 molar ratio) Disrupted membrane raft domains 70 Alkylphospholipid Edelfosine (5-10 mol%) Miltefosine (5-10 mol%) MLVs or ULVs (POPC, N-palmitoyl-SM and cholesterol, 1:1:1 molar ratio) Increased the fluidity of raft model membranes 71 Alkylphospholipid Erucylphosphocholine (≥0.3 mol%) Raft-mimic Langmuir monolayers (SM and cholesterol, 2:1 molar ratio) Increased the membrane raft fluidity and weakened the interaction between cholesterol and SM 72 Alkylphospholipid 2-Hydroxyoleic acid (≥0.1 mol%) Raft-mimic Langmuir monolayers (SM and cholesterol, 2:1 molar ratio) Increased the membrane raft fluidity 73 Platinum(II) complex Cisplatin (5 μg/mL) Human colon carcinoma cells Increased the membrane fluidity, which was inhibited by 10 μg/mL nystatin pretreatment Translocated CD95 into lipid rafts, which was prevented by 10 μg/mL nystatin pretreatment 75 Platinum(II) complex Cisplatin (25 μM) Human colon carcinoma cells Increased the membrane raft fluidity and induced apoptosis, which was inhibited by cholesterol (30 μg/mL) and monosialoganglioside-1 (80 μM) 76 Antibiotic Azithromycin (132 μM) SUVs (DOPC, SM and cholesterol, 1:1:1 molar ratio) Increased the fluidity of raft-like membranes 77 Antibiotic Daunorubicin (40-75 μM) LUVs (DMPC, SM and cholesterol, 7:1.5:1.5 molar ratio) Decreased the fluidity of raft-like membranes 78 Antibiotic Doxorubicin (40-75 μM) LUVs (DMPC and SM, 8:2 molar ratio or DMPC, SM and cholesterol, 7:1.5:1.5 molar ratio) Increased the fluidity of binary membranes, but not ternary membranes 79 DMPC = 1,2-dimyristoylphosphatidylcholine; DOPC = 1,2-dioleoylphosphatidylcholine; GUV = giant unilamellar vesicle; LUV = large unilamellar vesicle; MLV = multilamellar vesicle; ODPC = 10-(octyloxy) decyl-2-(trimethylammonium) ethyl phosphate; POPC = 1-palmitoyl-2-oleoylphosphatidylcholine; SM = sphingomy- elin; SUV = small unilamellar vesicle; ULV = unilamellar vesicle. analysis. Cisplatin increased the fluidity of plasma mem- branes as soon as 0.25 hours after the treatment, although its membrane effect was inhibited by pretreating with cho- lesterol sequestering nystatin at 10 μg/mL. The cell exposure to cisplatin for 4 hours induced the translocation of CD95 (cluster of differentiation 95 known as Fas receptor) into lipid rafts, which was prevented by nystatin pretreated at 10 μg/ mL. Rebillard et al treated human colon carcinoma (HT29) cells growing in the exponential phase with cisplatin at 25 μM for 1-72 hours (76). They isolated lipid rafts by SDGC and performed EPR spectroscopic analysis after 12-DSA spin labeling. Cisplatin treatment for 1 hour increased membrane raft fluidity and that for 72 hours induced apoptosis. Such ef- fects were inhibited by membrane-stabilizing cholesterol (30 μg/mL) and monosialoganglioside-1 (80 μM). Anticancer antibiotics Berquand et al treated SUVs prepared with DOPC, SM and cholesterol (1:1:1 molar ratio) with macrolide antibiotic azithromycin (77). FP analysis revealed that azithromycin increases the fluidity of a hydrophobic region of raft-like membranes at 132 μM. In FA experiments of Alves et al (78), anthracycline antibiotic daunorubicin (40-75 μM) decreased the fluidity of raft-like membranes of LUVs prepared with DMPC, SM and cholesterol (7:1.5:1.5 molar ratio), while this antibiotic was more effective in decreasing the mem- brane fluidity of LUVs prepared without cholesterol. Alves et al also investigated the effects of doxorubicin on LUVs pre- pared with DMPC and SM (8:2 molar ratio) or with DMPC, SM and cholesterol (7:1.5:1.5 molar ratio) by measuring FA (79). Doxorubicin increased the fluidity of binary membranes at 40-75 μM, but not raft-like ternary membranes containing cholesterol. Phytochemicals A variety of phytochemicals (bioactive components in plants) such as flavonoids exhibit a broad spectrum of pharmacological activity including antioxidant, antitumor, Interaction of drugs with lipid rafts42 © 2020 The Authors. Published by AboutScience anti-inflammatory, analgesic, antimicrobial, cardioprotec- tive, anti-allergic and antiplatelet ones. Many of them with the amphiphilic structure share the property to interact with artificial and biological membranes. The membrane interac- tivity of phytochemicals was recently reviewed by Tsuchiya (80), especially the interaction of flavonoids with lipid rafts by Tarahovsky et al (81) and their induced changes in membrane fluidity by Selvaraj et al (82). Results of the literature search on the interaction of phytochemicals with membrane lipid rafts and membranes are shown in Table V. TABLE V - Interaction of phytochemicals with lipid raft membrane domains and membranes Drug class Drug Membrane Induced membrane modification Reference Flavonoid Quercetin (10 μM) EGCG (10 μM) Cyanidin (10 μM) SUVs (phospholipids (POPC and SM) and cholesterol by varying the composition 55-80 mol% and 20-45 mol%) Quercetin decreased the membrane fluidity most potently, followed by cyanidin and EGCG 84 Flavonoid Quercetin (30 μM) Human colon cancer cells (HT-29, SW-620 and Caco-2) Enhanced TRAIL efficacy to induce apoptosis by accumulating death receptors in membrane lipid rafts 85 Flavonoid Quercetin (10 and 100 μM) Luteolin (10 and 100 μM) Mouse macrophages Suppressed the accumulation of lipid rafts to inhibit TNF-α production 86 Flavonoid Quercetin (2-16 μM) SUVs (DMPC plus 20 or 33 mol% cholesterol) Increased the fluidity of raft model membranes 87 Flavonoid EGCG (5-100 μM) SUVs (5 mol% cholesterol and 95 mol% POPC or DOPC) Decreased the fluidity of binary membranes 88 Flavonoid EGCG (5-20 μg/mL) Human colon carcinoma cells Reduced the membrane resistance to Triton X-100 by decreasing ordered membrane domains 89 Flavonoid EGCG (5 μM) Human prostate cancer cells Inhibited DiIC 16 accumulation in lipid ordered domains and disrupted lipid rafts 90 Flavonoid EGCG (5-20 μM) Human multiple myeloma cells Induced lipid raft clustering and apoptotic cell death 91 Flavonoid Dimeric procyanidin (0.05-1 μg/mL) Human acute T-cell leukemia cells Increased the membrane fluidity 92 Flavonoid Hexameric procyanidin (10 μM) Human colon cancer cells Decreased the membrane fluidity, although the membrane interactivity was lost by MBC (2.5 mM) Prevented the lipid raft disruption induced by MBC or deoxycholate 93 Stilbenoid Resveratrol (10-80 μM) LUVs (egg phosphatidylcholine, SM and cholesterol, 1:1:1 molar ratio) Formed the ordered membrane domains and enhanced the membrane resistance to Triton X-100 94 Anthraquinonoid Emodin (1-5 mol%) Aloin (1-5 mol%) MLVs composed of DMPC Reduced the phase transition temperature 95 Anthraquinonoid Emodin (10-50 μg/mL) Human umbilical vein endothelial cells Disrupted lipid rafts 96 Terpenoid Ginsenosides Rb2, Rc, Rd, Re, Rf, Rg1, Rg2 and Rh2 (50 μM) HeLa cells Increased the membrane fluidity Reduced the raft-marker protein concentration in lipid rafts 98 Terpenoid Saikosaponin A (3-12 μM) Mouse macrophages Inhibited LPS-induced cytokine expression and Toll-like receptor localization in lipid rafts, and reduced membrane cholesterol levels 99 DMPC = 1,2-dimyristoylphosphatidylcholine; DOPC = 1,2-dioleoylphosphatidylcholine; EGCG = (–)-epigallocatechin-3-gallate; LPS = lipopolysaccharide; LUV = large unilamellar vesicle; MBC = methyl-β-cyclodextrin; MLV = multilamellar vesicle; POPC = 1-palmitoyl-2-oleoylphosphatidylcholine; SM = sphingomy- elin; SUV = small unilamellar vesicle; TNF = tumor necrosis factor; TRAIL = TNF-related apoptosis-inducing ligand. Tsuchiya and Mizogami 43 © 2020 The Authors. Published by AboutScience Flavonoids Considering the distribution and accumulation in lipid bilayers, representative flavonoid quercetin and (–)-epigal- locatechin-3-gallate (EGCG) possibly alter membrane fluidity and order, making or breaking raft-like domains (83). Tsuchiya and Mizogami compared the effects of different flavonoids on SUVs that were prepared with phospholipids (POPC and SM) and cholesterol by varying their compositions 55-80 mol% and 20-45 mol%, respectively (84). FP data indicated that quercetin interacts preferentially with the hydropho- bic region of membranes to decrease the fluidity at 10 μM most potently, followed by cyanidin and EGCG. Psahoulia et al investigated the mechanism underlying an apoptosis- enhancing effect of quercetin by treating human colon can- cer cells (HT-29, SW-620 and Caco-2) with quercetin at 30 μM (85). While tumor necrosis factor (TNF)-related apoptosis- inducing ligand (TRAIL) contributes to apoptosis induction, quercetin enhanced the TRAIL efficacy to induce apoptosis by accumulating death receptors in membrane lipid rafts. In a cell culture study of Kaneko et al, quercetin and luteolin suppressed the accumulation of lipid rafts at 10 and 100 μM to inhibit TNF-α production in mouse macrophages (86). They also suggested that these flavonoids change mem- brane fluidity. Ionescu et al prepared SUVs with DMPC plus 20 or 33 mol% cholesterol to form the L o phase and examine the membrane effect of quercetin (87). FP measurements showed that quercetin increases the fluidity of raft model membranes at 2-16 μM. Tsuchiya treated SUVs consisting of 5 mol% cholesterol and 95 mol% POPC or DOPC with several catechins, followed by FP measurements (88). Of the tested catechins, EGCG most potently interacted with binary membranes to decrease their fluidity at 5-100 μM. Adachi et al stained human colon carci- noma (HT29) cells with fluorescent DiIC 16 (1,1’-dihexadecyl- 3,3,3’,3’-tetramethylindocarbocyanine perchlorate) that is preferentially incorporated into the ordered membranes, and then treated the cells with EGCG at 5-20 μg/mL to analyze its membrane effects by fluorescent confocal microscopy (89). EGCG reduced the membrane resistance to Triton X-100 at as little as 5 μg/mL, possibly by decreasing the content of or- dered membrane domains. Duhon et al exposed human pros- tate cancer (DU145) cells to DiIC 16 in the presence or absence of 5 μM EGCG, followed by fluorescence microscopic analysis (90). EGCG inhibited the accumulation of DiIC 16 in lipid-ordered domains and disrupted lipid rafts. Tsukamoto et al treated hu- man multiple myeloma (U266) cells with EGCG at 5-20 μM for 3 hours and at 10 μM for 1-3 hours (91). Fluorescence reso- nance energy transfer and fluorescence microscopic assays indicated that EGCG dose- and time-dependently induces lipid raft clustering and apoptotic cell death. Procyanidins contained in fruits and vegetables are oligo- meric flavonoids with the anticancer activity. Verstraeten et al treated human acute T-cell leukemia (Jurkat T) cells (6 × 104 cells) with cocoa procyanidins and measured FP (92). Dimeric procyanidin increased the fluidity of plasma mem- branes in a concentration-dependent manner at 0.05-1 μg/ mL. In the following experiment, they incubated human co- lon cancer (Caco-2) cells with 10 μM hexameric procyanidin in the absence or presence of 2.5 mM MBC (93). In contrast to dimeric procyanidin, hexameric procyanidin decreased the fluidity of plasma membranes, although its membrane interactivity was lost by cholesterol-depleting MBC. This pro- cyanidin also prevented lipid raft disruption induced by MBC or deoxycholate (cholesterol depletion/redistribution). Stilbenoids Resveratrol present in grape skins and seeds has antican- cer, antioxidant and cardioprotective property. Neves et al treated LUVs prepared with egg phosphatidylcholine, SM and cholesterol (1:1:1 molar ratio) with 10-80 μM resvera- trol to investigate the effects on raft model membranes by three different methods (94). Resveratrol induced the phase separation and formed the ordered membrane domains at concentrations higher than 10 μM. Such effects were more pronounced in the presence of cholesterol and SM. Resvera- trol was also effective at 80 μM in enhancing the membrane resistance to Triton X-100. Anthraquinonoids Pharmacological effects of aloe are attributed to anthra- quinonoid component emodin and aloin (barbaloin). DSC ex- periments of Alves et al demonstrated that emodin interacts with MLVs composed of DMPC to reduce the phase transi- tion temperature at 1-5 mol% more potently than aloin (95). Meng et al investigated the mechanism underlying a vascular anti-inflammatory effect of aloe by treating human umbilical vein endothelial cells grown to approximately 90% conflu- ence with emodin (96). Emodin (10-50 μg/mL) inhibited the expression of proinflammatory cytokines and chemokines induced by 0.1 μg/mL lipopolysaccharide (LPS). Similar to cholesterol-depleting MBC (5-12.5 mM), emodin (10-50 μg/mL) disrupted lipid rafts that are relevant to the cell activation by LPS. Lipid raft disruption associated with integrin signaling pathway is also responsible for the inhibitory effects of emo- din on tumor cell adhesion and spreading (97). Terpenoids Triterpenoid glycosides from Panax ginseng and triter- penoid saponin derivatives from Radix bupleuri have anti- inflammatory and anticancer activity. Yi et al treated HeLa cells with different ginsenosides at 50 μM and stained the cells with carboxy Laurdan, followed by fluorescence microscopy and generalized polarization imaging (98). Ginsenosides Rb2, Rc, Rd, Re, Rf, Rg1, Rg2 and Rh2 increased the fluidity of plasma membranes as well as cholesterol-depleting MBC (10 mM). When fractionating the HeLa cells by SDGC, ginsenoside Rh2 and MBC reduced the concentration of raft-marker proteins in the raft fraction, indicating that they disrupt lipid rafts. These effects of ginsenoside Rh2 were reversed by cholesterol over- loading (20 μg/mL). In a cell culture study of Wei et al (99), 3-12 μM saikosaponin A inhibited the expression of cytokines in primary mouse macrophages stimulated by 0.1 μg/mL LPS. Such inhibitory effects were attenuated by replenishment of 84 μg/mL cholesterol, while 3-12 μM saikosaponin A reduced cholesterol levels in macrophage membranes. Saikosaponin A (3-12 μM) and MBC (10 mM) also inhibited the LPS-induced Interaction of drugs with lipid rafts44 © 2020 The Authors. Published by AboutScience localization in lipid rafts of Toll-like receptors that play a cru- cial role in the innate immune system. Conclusions Results of the literature search indicate that different classes of drugs interact with raft model membranes and cel- lular membrane lipid rafts in addition to interacting directly with membrane receptors, ion channels and enzymes. They could physicochemically modify membrane lipid rafts to be a platform for functional proteins and the membranes sur- rounding such raft domains, affecting the organizational integrity of lipid rafts with the subsequent alteration of re- ceptor, channel and enzyme activity, thereby producing phar- macological effects. With respect to the induced membrane modification, raft-acting drugs are characterized as ones to decrease membrane fluidity, induce L o phase or order plasma membranes, leading to lipid raft formation; and ones to in- crease membrane fluidity, induce L d phase or reduce phase transition temperature, leading to lipid raft disruption. Tar- geting lipid raft membrane domains would open a new way for drug design and development. Given the critical role of lipid rafts/caveolae in cellular signal transduction, odontology may be the promising field to which a raft-targeting concept is applied. Anticancer drugs interact with membrane lipid rafts to affect their physico- chemical property and organizational integrity in association with apoptosis induction. Lipid raft membrane domains are responsible for cancer cell adhesion and migration, and the levels of cholesterol-rich lipid rafts are elevated in cancer cells compared with normal counterparts (100,101). While phytochemicals interact with membrane lipid rafts and regu- late raft formation (83,85), such interactivity is responsible for their diverse bioactivities including apoptosis induction. Among raft-targeting compounds, alkylphospholipids and fla- vonoids could be a novel type of anticancer drug. Since an outbreak of atypical pneumonia was first re- ported in Wuhan (China) in December 2019, novel corona- virus or severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infections have spread worldwide, causing a global pandemic of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). SARS-CoV-2 spike proteins have a strong binding affinity to human angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 (ACE2) (102). Host cell ACE2 receptors, which are a cell-specific target of and responsible for the cellular entry of SARS-CoV-2, are localized in lipid rafts (103). Cholesterol-rich membrane domains are essential for the spike proteins to interact with ACE2 recep- tors efficiently (104) and cellular cholesterol levels are closely associated with COVID-19 lethality (105). Agents that specifi- cally disrupt ACE2-localizing lipid rafts and deplete raft cho- lesterol may be a drug to reduce SARS-CoV-2 infectivity and COVID-19 severity. Abbreviations L o , liquid-ordered; L d , liquid-disordered; POPC, 1-palmi- toyl-2-oleoylphosphatidylcholine; SM, sphingomyelin; SDGC, sucrose density gradient centrifugation; MBC, methyl-β- cyclodextrin; FP, fluorescence polarization; FA, fluorescence anisotropy; DSC, differential scanning calorimetry; NMR, nuclear magnetic resonance; ND, neutron diffraction; XD, X- ray diffraction; GABA A , γ-aminobutyric acid type A; NMDA, N-methyl-D-aspartate; POPE, 1-palmitoyl-2-oleoylphospha- tidylethanolamine; POPS, 1-palmitoyl-2-oleoylphosphatidyl- serine; GPMV, giant plasma membrane vesicle; LUV, large unilamellar vesicle; DPPC, 1,2-dipalmitoylphosphatidylcho- line; DLPC, 1,2-dilauroylphosphatidylcholine; MAC, minimum alveolar concentration; DOPC, 1,2-dioleoylphosphatidyl- choline; Nav, voltage-gated sodium; SUV, small unilamellar vesicle; CB, cerebroside; POPI, 1-palmitoyl-2-oleoylphos- phatidylinositol; MLV, multilamellar vesicle; EPR, electron paramagnetic resonance; COX, cyclooxygenase; DMPC, 1,2-dimyristoylphosphatidylcholine; ODPC, 10-(octyloxy) decyl-2-(trimethylammonium) ethyl phosphate; GUV, gi- ant unilamellar vesicle; ULV, unilamellar vesicle; EGCG, (–)- epigallocatechin-3-gallate; TNF, tumor necrosis factor; TRAIL, TNF-related apoptosis-inducing ligand; LPS, lipopoly- saccharide; SARS-CoV-2, severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2; COVID-19, coronavirus disease 2019; ACE2, angiotensin-converting enzyme 2. Author contributions HT designed and conducted the present study and pre- pared the first draft of the manuscript. HT and MM did litera- ture search, information analysis and manuscript preparation. Both authors reviewed and approved the final manuscript. Disclosures Conflict of interest: Authors disclose no potential conflicts of in- terest. Financial support: This study was supported by JSPS KAKENHI grant number 20K10152 and JSPS KAKENHI grant number 17K11924. References 1. Kusumi A, Fujiwara TK, Chadda R, et al. Dynamic organizing principles of the plasma membrane that regulate signal trans- duction: commemorating the fortieth anniversary of Singer and Nicolson’s fluid-mosaic model. Annu Rev Cell Dev Biol. 2012;28(1):215-250. CrossRef Medline 2. Pike LJ. Rafts defined: a report on the Keystone Symposium on Lipid Rafts and Cell Function. J Lipid Res. 2006;47(7):1597-1598. CrossRef Medline 3. Hanzal-Bayer MF, Hancock JF. Lipid rafts and membrane traffic. FEBS Lett. 2007;581(11):2098-2104. CrossRef Medline 4. McMullen T, Lewis R, McElhany R. Cholesterol-phospholipid interactions, the liquid-ordered phase and lipid rafts in model and biological membranes. Curr Opin Colloid Interface Sci. 2004;8(6):459-468. CrossRef 5. Simons K, Toomre D. Lipid rafts and signal transduction. Nat Rev Mol Cell Biol. 2000;1(1):31-39. CrossRef Medline 6. Laude AJ, Prior IA. Plasma membrane microdomains: organiza- tion, function and trafficking. Mol Membr Biol. 2004;21(3):193- 205. CrossRef Medline 7. George KS, Wu S. Lipid raft: A floating island of death or sur- vival. Toxicol Appl Pharmacol. 2012;259(3):311-319. CrossRef Medline 8. O’Connell KM, Martens JR, Tamkun MM. Localization of ion channels to lipid Raft domains within the cardiovascular system. Trends Cardiovasc Med. 2004;14(2):37-42. CrossRef Medline https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-cellbio-100809-151736 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22905956 https://doi.org/10.1194/jlr.E600002-JLR200 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16645198 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.febslet.2007.03.019 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17382322 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cocis.2004.01.007 https://doi.org/10.1038/35036052 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11413487 https://doi.org/10.1080/09687680410001700517 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15204627 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.taap.2012.01.007 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22289360 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tcm.2003.10.002 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15030787 Tsuchiya and Mizogami 45 © 2020 The Authors. Published by AboutScience 9. Maguy A, Hebert TE, Nattel S. Involvement of lipid rafts and caveolae in cardiac ion channel function. Cardiovasc Res. 2006;69(4):798-807. CrossRef Medline 10. Dalskov SM, Immerdal L, Niels-Christiansen LL, Hansen GH, Schousboe A, Danielsen EM. Lipid raft localization of GABA A receptor and Na+, K+-ATPase in discrete microdomain clusters in rat cerebellar granule cells. Neurochem Int. 2005;46(6):489- 499. CrossRef Medline 11. Patel HH, Murray F, Insel PA. G-protein-coupled receptor-signaling components in membrane raft and caveolae microdomains. Handb Exp Pharmacol. 2008;186(186):167-184. CrossRef Medline 12. Xiang Y, Rybin VO, Steinberg SF, Kobilka B. Caveolar localization dictates physiologic signaling of β 2 -adrenoceptors in neonatal cardiac myocytes. J Biol Chem. 2002;277(37):34280-34286. CrossRef Medline 13. Pottosin II, Valencia-Cruz G, Bonales-Alatorre E, Shabala SN, Dobrovinskaya OR. Methyl-β-cyclodextrin reversibly alters the gating of lipid rafts-associated Kv1.3 channels in Jurkat T lymphocytes. Pflugers Arch. 2007;454(2):235-244. CrossRef Medline 14. Levitt ES, Clark MJ, Jenkins PM, Martens JR, Traynor JR. Dif- ferential effect of membrane cholesterol removal on μ- and δ-opioid receptors: a parallel comparison of acute and chronic signaling to adenylyl cyclase. J Biol Chem. 2009;284(33):22108- 22122. CrossRef Medline 15. Ding XQ, Fitzgerald JB, Matveev AV, McClellan ME, Elliott MH. Functional activity of photoreceptor cyclic nucleotide-gated channels is dependent on the integrity of cholesterol- and sphingolipid-enriched membrane domains. Biochemistry. 2008;47(12):3677-3687. CrossRef Medline 16. Gandhavadi M, Allende D, Vidal A, Simon SA, McIntosh TJ. Structure, composition, and peptide binding properties of de- tergent soluble bilayers and detergent resistant rafts. Biophys J. 2002;82(3):1469-1482. CrossRef Medline 17. Koumanov KS, Tessier C, Momchilova AB, Rainteau D, Wolf C, Quinn PJ. Comparative lipid analysis and structure of detergent- resistant membrane raft fractions isolated from human and ruminant erythrocytes. Arch Biochem Biophys. 2005;434(1): 150-158. CrossRef Medline 18. Holland GP, McIntyre SK, Alam TM. Distinguishing individual lipid headgroup mobility and phase transitions in raft-forming lipid mixtures with 31P MAS NMR. Biophys J. 2006;90(11):4248- 4260. CrossRef Medline 19. Simons K, Ehehalt R. Cholesterol, lipid rafts, and disease. J Clin Invest. 2002;110(5):597-603. CrossRef Medline 20. Jacobson K, Mouritsen OG, Anderson RG. Lipid rafts: at a crossroad between cell biology and physics. Nat Cell Biol. 2007;9(1):7-14. CrossRef Medline 21. Boesze-Battaglia K. Isolation of membrane rafts and signaling complexes. Methods Mol Biol. 2006;332:169-179. CrossRef Medline 22. Loftsson T, Magnúsdóttir A, Másson M, Sigurjónsdóttir JF. Self- association and cyclodextrin solubilization of drugs. J Pharm Sci. 2002;91(11):2307-2316. CrossRef Medline 23. Mahammad S, Parmryd I. Cholesterol depletion using methyl- β-cyclodextrin. Methods Mol Biol. 2015;1232:91-102. CrossRef Medline 24. Chau PL. New insights into the molecular mechanisms of general anaesthetics. Br J Pharmacol. 2010;161(2):288-307. CrossRef Medline 25. Olsen RW, Li GD. GABA A receptors as molecular targets of gen- eral anesthetics: identification of binding sites provides clues to allosteric modulation. Can J Anaesth. 2011;58(2):206-215. CrossRef Medline 26. Yamakura T, Harris RA. Effects of gaseous anesthetics nitrous oxide and xenon on ligand-gated ion channels. Comparison with isoflurane and ethanol. Anesthesiology. 2000;93(4):1095- 1101. CrossRef Medline 27. Daniell LC. Effect of anesthetic and convulsant barbiturates on N-methyl-D-aspartate receptor-mediated calcium flux in brain membrane vesicles. Pharmacology. 1994;49(5):296-307. CrossRef Medline 28. Li X, Serwanski DR, Miralles CP, Bahr BA, De Blas AL. Two pools of Triton X-100-insoluble GABA A receptors are present in the brain, one associated to lipid rafts and another one to the post- synaptic GABAergic complex. J Neurochem. 2007;102(4):1329- 1345. CrossRef Medline 29. Parat MO. Could endothelial caveolae be the target of gen- eral anaesthetics? Br J Anaesth. 2006;96(5):547-550. CrossRef Medline 30. Tsuchiya H. Structure-specific membrane-fluidizing effect of propofol. Clin Exp Pharmacol Physiol. 2001;28(4):292-299. CrossRef Medline 31. Tsuchiya H, Ueno T, Tanaka T, Matsuura N, Mizogami M. Com- parative study on determination of antioxidant and membrane activities of propofol and its related compounds. Eur J Pharm Sci. 2010;39(1-3):97-102. CrossRef Medline 32. Gray E, Karslake J, Machta BB, Veatch SL. Liquid general anes- thetics lower critical temperatures in plasma membrane vesi- cles. Biophys J. 2013;105(12):2751-2759. CrossRef Medline 33. Grim KJ, Abcejo AJ, Barnes A, et al. Caveolae and propofol ef- fects on airway smooth muscle. Br J Anaesth. 2012;109(3):444- 453. CrossRef Medline 34. Patel J, Chowdhury EA, Noorani B, Bickel U, Huang J. Iso- flurane increases cell membrane fluidity significantly at clinical concentrations. Biochim Biophys Acta Biomembr. 2020;1862(2):183140. CrossRef Medline 35. Turkyilmaz S, Almeida PF, Regen SL. Effects of isoflurane, halothane, and chloroform on the interactions and lateral or- ganization of lipids in the liquid-ordered phase. Langmuir. 2011;27(23):14380-14385. CrossRef Medline 36. Weinrich M, Nanda H, Worcester DL, Majkrzak CF, Maranville BB, Bezrukov SM. Halothane changes the domain structure of a binary lipid membrane. Langmuir. 2012;28(10):4723-4728. CrossRef Medline 37. Weinrich M, Worcester DL. Xenon and other volatile anesthet- ics change domain structure in model lipid raft membranes. J Phys Chem B. 2013;117(50):16141-16147. CrossRef Medline 38. Sierra-Valdez FJ, Ruiz-Suárez JC, Delint-Ramirez I. Pentobarbi- tal modifies the lipid raft-protein interaction: A first clue about the anesthesia mechanism on NMDA and GABA A receptors. Biochim Biophys Acta. 2016;1858(11):2603-2610. CrossRef Medline 39. Fozzard HA, Lee PJ, Lipkind GM. Mechanism of local anesthetic drug action on voltage-gated sodium channels. Curr Pharm Des. 2005;11(21):2671-2686. CrossRef Medline 40. Pristerá A, Okuse K. Building excitable membranes: lipid rafts and multiple controls on trafficking of electrogenic molecules. Neuroscientist. 2012;18(1):70-81. CrossRef Medline 41. Bao L. Trafficking regulates the subcellular distribution of voltage-gated sodium channels in primary sensory neurons. Mol Pain. 2015;11:61. CrossRef Medline 42. Pristerà A, Baker MD, Okuse K. Association between tetrodo- toxin resistant channels and lipid rafts regulates sensory neu- ron excitability. PLoS One. 2012;7(8):e40079. CrossRef Medline 43. Kamata K, Manno S, Ozaki M, Takakuwa Y. Functional evi- dence for presence of lipid rafts in erythrocyte membranes: Gsα in rafts is essential for signal transduction. Am J Hematol. 2008;83(5):371-375. CrossRef Medline 44. Bandeiras C, Serro AP, Luzyanin K, Fernandes A, Saramago B. Anesthetics interacting with lipid rafts. Eur J Pharm Sci. 2013;48(1-2):153-165. CrossRef Medline https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cardiores.2005.11.013 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16405931 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuint.2004.11.010 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuint.2004.11.010 https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-72843-6_7 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18491052 https://doi.org/10.1074/jbc.M201644200 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12097322 https://doi.org/10.1007/s00424-007-0208-4 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17242956 https://doi.org/10.1074/jbc.M109.030411 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19520863 https://doi.org/10.1021/bi7019645 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18303857 https://doi.org/10.1016/S0006-3495(02)75501-X https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11867462 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.abb.2004.10.025 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15629118 https://doi.org/10.1529/biophysj.105.077289 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16533851 https://doi.org/10.1172/JCI0216390 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12208858 https://doi.org/10.1038/ncb0107-7 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17199125 https://doi.org/10.1385/1-59745-048-0:167 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16878692 https://doi.org/10.1002/jps.10226 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12379916 https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4939-1752-5_8 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25331130 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1476-5381.2010.00891.x https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20735416 https://doi.org/10.1007/s12630-010-9429-7 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21194017 https://doi.org/10.1097/00000542-200010000-00034 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11020766 https://doi.org/10.1159/000139246 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7862741 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-4159.2007.04635.x https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17663755 https://doi.org/10.1093/bja/ael079 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16600902 https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1440-1681.2001.03441.x https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11251643 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejps.2009.11.001 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19897032 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bpj.2013.11.005 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24359747 https://doi.org/10.1093/bja/aes130 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22542538 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bbamem.2019.183140 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31790694 https://doi.org/10.1021/la2035278 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21995557 https://doi.org/10.1021/la204317k https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22352350 https://doi.org/10.1021/jp411261g https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24299622 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bbamem.2016.07.011 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27457704 https://doi.org/10.2174/1381612054546833 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16101448 https://doi.org/10.1177/1073858410393977 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21518816 https://doi.org/10.1186/s12990-015-0065-7 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26423360 https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0040079 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22870192 https://doi.org/10.1002/ajh.21126 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18181202 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejps.2012.10.023 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23142844 Interaction of drugs with lipid rafts46 © 2020 The Authors. Published by AboutScience 45. Yoshida K, Takashima A, Nishio I. Effect of dibucaine hydro- chloride on raft-like lipid domains in model membrane system. MedChemComm. 2015;6(8):1444-1451. CrossRef 46. Sugahara K, Shimokawa N, Takagi M. Thermal stability of phase- separated domains in multicomponent lipid membranes with local anesthetics. Membranes (Basel). 2017;7(3):33. CrossRef Medline 47. Kinoshita M, Chitose T, Matsumori N. Mechanism of local anesthetic-induced disruption of raft-like ordered membrane domains. Biochim Biophys Acta, Gen Subj. 2019;1863(9):1381- 1389. CrossRef Medline 48. Groban L, Deal DD, Vernon JC, James RL, Butterworth J. Car- diac resuscitation after incremental overdosage with lidocaine, bupivacaine, levobupivacaine, and ropivacaine in anesthetized dogs. Anesth Analg. 2001;92(1):37-43. CrossRef Medline 49. Tsuchiya H, Ueno T, Mizogami M, Takakura K. Do local anes- thetics interact preferentially with membrane lipid rafts? Com- parative interactivities with raft-like membranes. J Anesth. 2010;24(4):639-642. CrossRef Medline 50. Tsuchiya H, Mizogami M. R(+)-, Rac-, and S(-)-bupivacaine ste- reostructure-specifically interact with membrane lipids at car- diotoxically relevant concentrations. Anesth Analg. 2012;114(2): 310-312. CrossRef Medline 51. Pontier SM, Percherancier Y, Galandrin S, Breit A, Galés C, Bouvier M. Cholesterol-dependent separation of the β 2 -adrenergic receptor from its partners determines signaling ef- ficacy: insight into nanoscale organization of signal transduction. J Biol Chem. 2008;283(36):24659-24672. CrossRef Medline 52. Mizogami M, Takakura K, Tsuchiya H. The interactivities with lipid membranes differentially characterize selective and non- selective β 1 -blockers. Eur J Anaesthesiol. 2010;27(9):829-834. CrossRef Medline 53. Tsuchiya H, Mizogami M. Characteristic interactivity of landio- lol, an ultra-short-acting highly selective β 1 -blocker, with biomi- metic membranes: comparisons with β 1 -selective esmolol and non-selective propranolol and alprenolol. Front Pharmacol. 2013;4:150. CrossRef Medline 54. Prichard BN, Cruickshank JM, Graham BR. Beta-adrenergic blocking drugs in the treatment of hypertension. Blood Press. 2001;10(5-6):366-386. CrossRef Medline 55. Callera GE, Montezano AC, Yogi A, Tostes RC, Touyz RM. Vas- cular signaling through cholesterol-rich domains: implications in hypertension. Curr Opin Nephrol Hypertens. 2007;16(2):90- 104. CrossRef Medline 56. Mizogami M, Tsuchiya H. Membrane interactivity of anes- thetic adjuvant dexmedetomidine discriminable from clonidine and enantiomeric levomedetomidine. J Adv Med Med Res. 2019;29:1-15. CrossRef 57. Morris DP, Lei B, Wu YX, Michelotti GA, Schwinn DA. The α 1a - adrenergic receptor occupies membrane rafts with its G protein effectors but internalizes via clathrin-coated pits. J Biol Chem. 2008;283(5):2973-2985. CrossRef Medline 58. Huang P, Xu W, Yoon SI, et al. Agonist treatment did not affect association of mu opioid receptors with lipid rafts and choles- terol reduction had opposite effects on the receptor-mediated signaling in rat brain and CHO cells. Brain Res. 2007;1184:46- 56. CrossRef Medline 59. Heron DS, Shinitzky M, Zamir N, Samuel D. Adaptive mod- ulations of brain membrane lipid fluidity in drug addic- tion and denervation supersensitivity. Biochem Pharmacol. 1982;31(14):2435-2438. CrossRef Medline 60. Budai M, Szabó Z, Szogyi M, Gróf P. Molecular interactions be- tween DPPC and morphine derivatives: a DSC and EPR study. Int J Pharm. 2003;250:239–250. CrossRef 61. Zheng H, Chu J, Qiu Y, Loh HH, Law PY. Agonist-selective signaling is determined by the receptor location within the membrane domains. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2008;105(27):9421-9426. CrossRef Medline 62. Liou JY, Deng WG, Gilroy DW, Shyue SK, Wu KK. Colocalization and interaction of cyclooxygenase-2 with caveolin-1 in human fibro- blasts. J Biol Chem. 2001;276(37):34975-34982. CrossRef Medline 63. Alsop RJ, Toppozini L, Marquardt D, Kučerka N, Harroun TA, Rheinstädter MC. Aspirin inhibits formation of choles- terol rafts in fluid lipid membranes. Biochim Biophys Acta. 2015;1848(3):805-812. CrossRef Medline 64. Alsop RJ, Himbert S, Dhaliwal A, Schmalzl K, Rheinstädter MC. Aspirin locally disrupts the liquid-ordered phase. R Soc Open Sci. 2018;5(2):171710. CrossRef Medline 65. Zhou Y, Cho KJ, Plowman SJ, Hancock JF. Nonsteroidal anti- inflammatory drugs alter the spatiotemporal organiza- tion of Ras proteins on the plasma membrane. J Biol Chem. 2012;287(20):16586-16595. CrossRef Medline 66. Alves ACS, Dias RA, Kagami LP, et al. Beyond the “lock and key” paradigm: targeting lipid rafts to induce the selective apopto- sis of cancer cells. Curr Med Chem. 2018;25(18):2082-2104. CrossRef Medline 67. van der Luit AH, Vink SR, Klarenbeek JB, et al. A new class of an- ticancer alkylphospholipids uses lipid rafts as membrane gate- ways to induce apoptosis in lymphoma cells. Mol Cancer Ther. 2007;6(8):2337-2345. CrossRef Medline 68. Alves AC, Ribeiro D, Nunes C, Reis S. Biophysics in cancer: the relevance of drug-membrane interaction studies. Biochim Bio- phys Acta. 2016;1858(9):2231-2244. CrossRef Medline 69. Ausili A, Torrecillas A, Aranda FJ, et al. Edelfosine is incorpo- rated into rafts and alters their organization. J Phys Chem B. 2008;112(37):11643-11654. CrossRef Medline 70. Gomide AB, Thomé CH, dos Santos GA, et al. Disrupting mem- brane raft domains by alkylphospholipids. Biochim Biophys Acta. 2013;1828(5):1384-1389. CrossRef Medline 71. Castro BM, Fedorov A, Hornillos V, et al. Edelfosine and miltefo- sine effects on lipid raft properties: membrane biophysics in cell death by antitumor lipids. J Phys Chem B. 2013;117(26):7929- 7940. CrossRef Medline 72. Wnętrzak A, Łątka K, Makyła-Juzak K, Zemla J, Dynarowicz-Łątka P. The influence of an antitumor lipid - erucylphosphocholine - on artificial lipid raft system modeled as Langmuir monolayer. Mol Membr Biol. 2015;32(5-8):189-197. CrossRef Medline 73. Węder K, Mach M, Hąc-Wydro K, Wydro P. Studies on the inter- actions of anticancer drug - Minerval - with membrane lipids in binary and ternary Langmuir monolayers. Biochim Biophys Acta Biomembr. 2018;1860(11):2329-2336. CrossRef Medline 74. Rebillard A, Lagadic-Gossmann D, Dimanche-Boitrel MT. Cispla- tin cytotoxicity: DNA and plasma membrane targets. Curr Med Chem. 2008;15(26):2656-2663. CrossRef Medline 75. Lacour S, Hammann A, Grazide S, et al. Cisplatin-induced CD95 re- distribution into membrane lipid rafts of HT29 human colon can- cer cells. Cancer Res. 2004;64(10):3593-3598. CrossRef Medline 76. Rebillard A, Tekpli X, Meurette O, et al. Cisplatin-induced apop- tosis involves membrane fluidification via inhibition of NHE1 in human colon cancer cells. Cancer Res. 2007;67(16):7865-7874. CrossRef Medline 77. Berquand A, Fa N, Dufrêne YF, Mingeot-Leclercq MP. Interac- tion of the macrolide antibiotic azithromycin with lipid bilayers: effect on membrane organization, fluidity, and permeability. Pharm Res. 2005;22(3):465-475. CrossRef Medline 78. Alves AC, Ribeiro D, Horta M, Lima JLFC, Nunes C, Reis S. A biophysical approach to daunorubicin interaction with model membranes: relevance for the drug’s biological activity. J R Soc Interface. 2017;14(133):20170408. CrossRef Medline 79. Alves AC, Magarkar A, Horta M, et al. Influence of doxorubicin on model cell membrane properties: insights from in vitro and in silico studies. Sci Rep. 2017;7(1):6343. CrossRef Medline https://doi.org/10.1039/C5MD00108K https://doi.org/10.3390/membranes7030033 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28661445 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bbagen.2019.06.008 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31207252 https://doi.org/10.1097/00000539-200101000-00008 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11133597 https://doi.org/10.1007/s00540-010-0943-0 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20414686 https://doi.org/10.1213/ANE.0b013e31823ed410 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22156330 https://doi.org/10.1074/jbc.M800778200 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18566454 https://doi.org/10.1097/EJA.0b013e32833bf5e4 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20601889 https://doi.org/10.3389/fphar.2013.00150 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24339816 https://doi.org/10.1080/080370501753400665 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11822540 https://doi.org/10.1097/MNH.0b013e328040bfbd https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17293683 https://doi.org/10.9734/jammr/2019/v29i1130142 https://doi.org/10.1074/jbc.M705795200 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18048357 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.brainres.2007.09.096 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17980352 https://doi.org/10.1016/0006-2952(82)90543-3 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/6889866 https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-5173(02)00560-4 https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0802253105 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18599439 https://doi.org/10.1074/jbc.M105946200 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11432874 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bbamem.2014.11.023 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25475646 https://doi.org/10.1098/rsos.171710 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29515878 https://doi.org/10.1074/jbc.M112.348490 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22433858 https://doi.org/10.2174/0929867325666180111100601 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29332565 https://doi.org/10.1158/1535-7163.MCT-07-0202 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17699729 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bbamem.2016.06.025 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27368477 https://doi.org/10.1021/jp802165n https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18712919 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bbamem.2013.01.017 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23376656 https://doi.org/10.1021/jp401407d https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23738749 https://doi.org/10.3109/09687688.2015.1125537 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26911703 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bbamem.2018.05.019 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29864405 https://doi.org/10.2174/092986708786242903 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18991628 https://doi.org/10.1158/0008-5472.CAN-03-2787 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15150117 https://doi.org/10.1158/0008-5472.CAN-07-0353 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17699793 https://doi.org/10.1007/s11095-004-1885-8 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15835753 https://doi.org/10.1098/rsif.2017.0408 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28855387 https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-017-06445-z https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28740256 Tsuchiya and Mizogami 47 © 2020 The Authors. Published by AboutScience 80. Tsuchiya H. Membrane interactions of phytochemicals as their mo- lecular mechanism applicable to the discovery of drug leads from plants. Molecules. 2015;20(10):18923-18966. CrossRef Medline 81. Tarahovsky YS, Kim YA, Yagolnik EA, Muzafarov EN. Flavonoid- membrane interactions: involvement of flavonoid-metal com- plexes in raft signaling. Biochim Biophys Acta. 2014;1838(5):1235- 1246. CrossRef Medline 82. Selvaraj S, Krishnaswamy S, Devashya V, Sethuraman S, Krishnan UM. Influence of membrane lipid composition on flavonoid- membrane interactions: implications on their biological activity. Prog Lipid Res. 2015;58:1-13. CrossRef Medline 83. Tarahovsky YS, Muzafarov EN, Kim YA. Rafts making and rafts braking: how plant flavonoids may control membrane heteroge- neity. Mol Cell Biochem. 2008;314(1-2):65-71. CrossRef Medline 84. Tsuchiya H, Mizogami M. Plant components exhibit pharmaco- logical activities and drug interactions by acting on lipid mem- branes. Pharmacog Commun. 2012;2:58–71. Online 85. Psahoulia FH, Drosopoulos KG, Doubravska L, Andera L, Pintzas A. Quercetin enhances TRAIL-mediated apoptosis in colon can- cer cells by inducing the accumulation of death receptors in lipid rafts. Mol Cancer Ther. 2007;6(9):2591-2599. CrossRef Medline 86. Kaneko M, Takimoto H, Sugiyama T, Seki Y, Kawaguchi K, Kumazawa Y. Suppressive effects of the flavonoids querce- tin and luteolin on the accumulation of lipid rafts after signal transduction via receptors. Immunopharmacol Immunotoxicol. 2008;30(4):867-882. CrossRef Medline 87. Ionescu D, Margină D, Ilie M, Iftime A, Ganea C. Quercetin and epigallocatechin-3-gallate effect on the anisotropy of model membranes with cholesterol. Food Chem Toxicol. 2013;61:94- 100. CrossRef Medline 88. Tsuchiya H. Stereospecificity in membrane effects of catechins. Chem Biol Interact. 2001;134(1):41-54. CrossRef Medline 89. Adachi S, Nagao T, Ingolfsson HI, et al. The inhibitory effect of (-)-epigallocatechin gallate on activation of the epidermal growth factor receptor is associated with altered lipid order in HT29 colon cancer cells. Cancer Res. 2007;67(13):6493-6501. CrossRef Medline 90. Duhon D, Bigelow RL, Coleman DT, et al. The polyphenol epi- gallocatechin-3-gallate affects lipid rafts to block activation of the c-Met receptor in prostate cancer cells. Mol Carcinog. 2010;49(8):739-749. CrossRef Medline 91. Tsukamoto S, Hirotsu K, Kumazoe M, et al. Green tea polyphe- nol EGCG induces lipid-raft clustering and apoptotic cell death by activating protein kinase Cδ and acid sphingomyelinase through a 67 kDa laminin receptor in multiple myeloma cells. Biochem J. 2012;443(2):525-534. CrossRef Medline 92. Verstraeten SV, Oteiza PI, Fraga CG. Membrane effects of co- coa procyanidins in liposomes and Jurkat T cells. Biol Res. 2004;37(2):293-300. CrossRef Medline 93. Verstraeten SV, Jaggers GK, Fraga CG, Oteiza PI. Procyanidins can interact with Caco-2 cell membrane lipid rafts: involvement of cholesterol. Biochim Biophys Acta. 2013;1828(11):2646- 2653. CrossRef Medline 94. Neves AR, Nunes C, Reis S. Resveratrol induces ordered do- mains formation in biomembranes: implication for its pleiotro- pic action. Biochim Biophys Acta. 2016;1858(1):12-18. CrossRef Medline 95. Alves DS, Pérez-Fons L, Estepa A, Micol V. Membrane-related effects underlying the biological activity of the anthraquinones emodin and barbaloin. Biochem Pharmacol. 2004;68(3):549- 561. CrossRef Medline 96. Meng G, Liu Y, Lou C, Yang H. Emodin suppresses lipopolysac- charide-induced pro-inflammatory responses and NF-κB activa- tion by disrupting lipid rafts in CD14-negative endothelial cells. Br J Pharmacol. 2010;161(7):1628-1644. CrossRef Medline 97. Huang Q, Shen HM, Shui G, Wenk MR, Ong CN. Emodin inhib- its tumor cell adhesion through disruption of the membrane lipid raft-associated integrin signaling pathway. Cancer Res. 2006;66(11):5807-5815. CrossRef Medline 98. Yi JS, Choo HJ, Cho BR, et al. Ginsenoside Rh2 induces ligand- independent Fas activation via lipid raft disruption. Bio- chem Biophys Res Commun. 2009;385(2):154-159. CrossRef Medline 99. Wei Z, Wang J, Shi M, Liu W, Yang Z, Fu Y. Saikosaponin a inhibits LPS-induced inflammatory response by inducing liver X recep- tor alpha activation in primary mouse macrophages. Oncotar- get. 2016;7(31):48995-49007. CrossRef Medline 100. Murai T. The role of lipid rafts in cancer cell adhesion and migra- tion. Int J Cell Biol. 2012;2012:763283. CrossRef Medline 101. Li YC, Park MJ, Ye SK, Kim CW, Kim YN. Elevated levels of cho- lesterol-rich lipid rafts in cancer cells are correlated with apop- tosis sensitivity induced by cholesterol-depleting agents. Am J Pathol. 2006;168(4):1107-1118. CrossRef Medline 102. Zhang H, Penninger JM, Li Y, Zhong N, Slutsky AS. Angiotensin- converting enzyme 2 (ACE2) as a SARS-CoV-2 receptor: mo- lecular mechanisms and potential therapeutic target. Intensive Care Med. 2020;46(4):586-590. CrossRef Medline 103. Lu Y, Liu DX, Tam JP. Lipid rafts are involved in SARS-CoV entry into Vero E6 cells. Biochem Biophys Res Commun. 2008;369(2):344- 349. CrossRef Medline 104. Glende J, Schwegmann-Wessels C, Al-Falah M, et al. Importance of cholesterol-rich membrane microdomains in the interaction of the S protein of SARS-coronavirus with the cellular receptor angiotensin-converting enzyme 2. Virology. 2008;381(2):215- 221. CrossRef Medline 105. Wang H, Yuan Z, Pavel MA, Hobson R, Hansen SB. The role of high cholesterol in age-related COVID19 lethality. bioRxiv. 2020.05.09.086249. CrossRef https://doi.org/10.3390/molecules201018923 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26501254 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bbamem.2014.01.021 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24472512 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.plipres.2014.11.002 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25479162 https://doi.org/10.1007/s11010-008-9766-9 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18414995 http://phcogfirst.com/article/869 https://doi.org/10.1158/1535-7163.MCT-07-0001 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17876056 https://doi.org/10.1080/08923970802135690 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18720166 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fct.2013.03.007 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23523830 https://doi.org/10.1016/S0009-2797(00)00308-2 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11248221 https://doi.org/10.1158/0008-5472.CAN-07-0411 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17616711 https://doi.org/10.1002/mc.20649 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20623641 https://doi.org/10.1042/BJ20111837 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22257159 https://doi.org/10.4067/S0716-97602004000200016 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15455659 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bbamem.2013.07.023 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23899501 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bbamem.2015.10.005 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26456556 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bcp.2004.04.012 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15242821 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1476-5381.2010.00993.x https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20726986 https://doi.org/10.1158/0008-5472.CAN-06-0077 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16740720 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bbrc.2009.05.028 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19445898 https://doi.org/10.18632/oncotarget.9863 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27285988 https://doi.org/10.1155/2012/763283 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22253629 https://doi.org/10.2353/ajpath.2006.050959 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16565487 https://doi.org/10.1007/s00134-020-05985-9 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32125455 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bbrc.2008.02.023 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18279660 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.virol.2008.08.026 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18814896 https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.05.09.086249