Key result
Weak binding acto-S1 complexes showed a spatial separation between probes that was approximately 3 nm closer than in strongly bound states, indicating a considerable difference in structure.
FRET measurements reveal a considerable structural difference between weakly and strongly bound states of the acto-S1 complex, with a ~3 nm decrease in distance between specific actin and myosin sites in the weak state.
Structural differences in acto-S1 may refine cardiac cross-bridge models; hypothesis-generating and leaves open human translation.
Fluorescence resonance energy transfer measurements have been made between Cys-374 on actin and Cys-177 on the alkali light chain of myosin subfragment 1 (S1) using several pairs of donor-acceptor chromophores. The labeled light chain was exchanged into subfragment 1 and the resulting fluorescently labeled subfragment 1 isolated by ion-exchange chromatography on SP-Trisacryl. The efficiency of energy transfer was measured by steady-state fluorescence in a strong binding complex of acto-S1 and found to represent a spatial separation between the two probes of 5.6-6.3 nm. The same measurements were then made with weak binding acto-S1 complexes generated in two ways. First, actin was complexed with p-phenylenedimaleimide-S1, a stable analogue of S1-adenosine 5'-triphosphate (ATP), obtained by cross-linking the SH1 and SH2 heavy-chain thiols of subfragment 1 [Greene, L. E., Chalovich, J. M., & Eisenberg, E. (1986) Biochemistry 25, 704-709]. Large increases in transfer efficiency indicated that the two probes had moved closer together by some 3 nm. Second, weak binding complexes were formed between subfragment 1 and actin in the presence of the regulatory proteins troponin and tropomyosin, the absence of calcium, and the presence of ATP [Chalovich, J. M., & Eisenberg, E. (1982) J. Biol. Chem. 257, 2432-2437]. The measured efficiency of energy transfer again indicated that the distance between the two labeled sites had moved closer by about 3 nm. These data support the idea that there is a considerable difference in the structure of the acto-S1 complex between the weakly and strongly bound states.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Trayer et al. (1988) studied this question. Weak binding acto-S1 complexes vs. Strong binding complex of acto-S1 was evaluated on Spatial separation between fluorescent probes on actin and myosin S1. Weak binding acto-S1 complexes showed a spatial separation between probes that was approximately 3 nm closer than in strongly bound states, indicating a considerable difference in structure.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: