Aluminium MOFs have not been studied for drug delivery or interactions with phospholipids up to this point. To get insights on the anchoring of these frameworks with GUV membrane we referred to the literature reporting absorption of phosphates with Al fumarate MOF, MIL-53(Al), and MIL-100(Al) MOFs. This study showed that by varying the pH of the solution, both electrostatic interactions and ligand exchange mechanisms between phosphate anions and Al³⁺ nodes were observed, and that maximum phosphate absorption occurs at a neutral pH, where electrostatic interactions were responsible for phosphate absorption. Subsequently, in our experiments (conducted at pH 7.4), the MOF GUV anchoring observed is likely driven by electrostatic interactions between the electropositive aluminium centre and the electronegative lipid layer. GUVs were produced in the presence and immobilized by MIL-53 using each of the lipid compositions and MIL-100(Al) using negatively charged lipid mix, respectively (figures S3, S4 and S5). MIL-53(Al) displayed not only favourable GUV growth with all lipid compositions (Figure ), but giant GUVs up to 100-250 µm were produced in POPC:Chol lipid mixture (Figure ). There were moderate instances of GUV immobilization due to small size of MOF particles. Conversely, we observed both a drop in the number of GUVs produced and reduction in vesicle diameter with MIL-100(Al) (Figure ). GUV anchoring was observed with a negatively charged lipid mixture and DOPC:DPPC:Chol lipid (Figure ). GUVs formed in the presence of this framework with POPC:Chol did not demonstrate immobilization (Figure ) and showed the smallest size distribution among all MOFs with vesicle diameters ranging from 7 -13 µm (Figure ).The difference in ligand topology (terephthalic acid, bidentate vs trimesic acid, tridentate) results in important structural changes that may have influenced GUV production and immobilization. Supplementary videos SV1 and SV2 demonstrate the POPC:POPG:Chol GUV@MOF with MIL-53(Al) and MIL-100(Al), respectively.