Key result
SDS-PAGE of lobster claw muscles identifies three distinct fiber populations based on protein isoforms.
Does not alter cardiovascular practice; leaves open whether isoform profiling extends to mammalian cardiac fibers.
SDS-polyacrylamide gel electrophoresis of myofibrillar proteins in single fibers of lobster claw closer muscles distinguished three types of fibers: one fast and two slow. The fibers differed both qualitatively and quantitatively in the variants of paramyosin and troponin present. There were four proteins unique to fast fibers (paramyosin1, a 75-kD protein, troponin-I3, and -I5) and two proteins unique to slow fibers (troponin-I4 and -C1). Fast fibers were found only in the cutter claw. The major type of slow fibers (S1) appeared to account for the entire muscle mass in the crusher claw as well as ~85% of the slow fibers in the cutter claw. Another type (S2) comprised 10-15% of the slow fibers in the cutter claw. The S1 and S2 fibers differed in the variants of troponin-I and -T. The S2 fibers contained troponin-T, and I2 as the major variant of troponin-I; S1 fibers lacked T1 and contained I4 as the major isoform. These data indicate that the heterogeneity of myofibrillar proteins observed in actomyosins extracted from whole muscle (Mykles, 1985) is due to three populations of fibers, each containing its own assemblage of regulatory and contractile isoforms. More than one variant of a myofibrillar protein can be expressed in a single fiber, forming unique assemblages by which subgroups can be discriminated within the broader categories of fast and slow fibers.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Donald L. Mykles (1985) studied this question. SDS-polyacrylamide gel electrophoresis was evaluated on Identification of fiber types based on myofibrillar protein variants. SDS-polyacrylamide gel electrophoresis of single fibers from lobster claw muscles identified three distinct fiber populations (one fast and two slow) based on unique assemblages of protein isoforms.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: