This first complete transient kinetic characterization of a non-myosin-II superfamily member reveals that myosin-I is weakly bound to actin during steady-state ATP hydrolysis, requiring multiple molecules for processive motility.
Reveals myosin-I kinetics in a model system; leaves open extension to cardiac myosin function and motility disorders.
Acanthamoeba myosin-IA and myosin-IB are single-headed molecular motors that may play an important role in membrane-based motility. To better define the types of motility that myosin-IA and myosin IB can support, we determined the rate constants for key steps on the myosin-I ATPase pathway using fluorescence stopped-flow, cold-chase, and rapid-quench techniques. We determined the rate constants for ATP binding, ATP hydrolysis, actomyosin-I dissociation, phosphate release, and ADP release. We also determined equilibrium constants for myosin-I binding to actin filaments, ADP binding to actomyosin-I, and ATP hydrolysis. These rate constants define an ATPase mechanism in which (a) ATP rapidly dissociates actomyosin-I, (b) the predominant steady-state intermediates are in a rapid equilibrium between actin-bound and free states, (c) phosphate release is rate limiting and regulated by heavy-chain phosphorylation, and (d) ADP release is fast. Thus, during steady-state ATP hydrolysis, myosin-I is weakly bound to the actin filament like skeletal muscle myosin-II and unlike the microtubule-based motor kinesin. Therefore, for myosin-I to support processive motility or cortical contraction, multiple myosin-I molecules must be specifically localized to a small region on a membrane or in the actin-rich cell cortex. This conclusion has important implications for the regulation of myosin-I via localization through the unique myosin-I tails. This is the first complete transient kinetic characterization of a member of the myosin superfamily, other than myosin-II, providing the opportunity to obtain insights about the evolution of all myosin isoforms.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Ostap et al. (1996) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: