Passive stiffness of Drosophila IFM myofibrils: a novel, high accuracy measurement method

TNNT2 mutations in the tropomyosin binding region of TNT1 disrupt its role in contractile inhibition and stimulate cardiac dysfunction

Muscle contraction is regulated by the movement of end-to-end-linked troponin-tropomyosin complexes over the thin filament surface, which uncovers or blocks myosin binding sites along F-actin. The N-terminal half of troponin T (TnT), TNT1, independently promotes tropomyosin-based, steric inhibition of acto-myosin associations, in vitro. Recent structural models additionally suggest TNT1 may restrain the uniform, regulatory translocation of tropomyosin. Therefore, TnT potentially contributes to striated muscle relaxation; however, the in vivo functional relevance and molecular basis of this noncanonical role remain unclear. Impaired relaxation is a hallmark of hypertrophic and restrictive cardiomyopathies (HCM and RCM). Investigating the effects of cardiomyopathy-causing mutations could help clarify TNT1's enigmatic inhibitory property. We tested the hypothesis that coupling of TNT1 with tropomyosin's end-to-end overlap region helps anchor tropomyosin to an inhibitory position on F-actin, where it deters myosin binding at rest, and that, correspondingly, cross-bridge cycling is defectively suppressed under diastolic/low Ca2+ conditions in the presence of HCM/RCM lesions. The impact of TNT1 mutations on Drosophila cardiac performance, rat myofibrillar and cardiomyocyte properties, and human TNT1's propensity to inhibit myosin-driven, F-actin-tropomyosin motility were evaluated. Our data collectively demonstrate that removing conserved, charged residues in TNT1's tropomyosin-binding domain impairs TnT's contribution to inhibitory tropomyosin positioning and relaxation. Thus, TNT1 may modulate acto-myosin activity by optimizing F-actin-tropomyosin interfacial contacts and by binding to actin, which restrict tropomyosin's movement to activating configurations. HCM/RCM mutations, therefore, highlight TNT1's essential role in contractile regulation by diminishing its tropomyosin-anchoring effects, potentially serving as the initial trigger of pathology in our animal models and humans.

Invertebrate muscles: thin and thick filament structure; molecular basis of contraction and its regulation, catch and asynchronous muscle

This is the second in a series of canonical reviews on invertebrate muscle. We cover here thin and thick filament structure, the molecular basis of force generation and its regulation, and two special properties of some invertebrate muscle, catch and asynchronous muscle. Invertebrate thin filaments resemble vertebrate thin filaments, although helix structure and tropomyosin arrangement show small differences. Invertebrate thick filaments, alternatively, are very different from vertebrate striated thick filaments and show great variation within invertebrates. Part of this diversity stems from variation in paramyosin content, which is greatly increased in very large diameter invertebrate thick filaments. Other of it arises from relatively small changes in filament backbone structure, which results in filaments with grossly similar myosin head placements (rotating crowns of heads every 14.5 nm) but large changes in detail (distances between heads in azimuthal registration varying from three to thousands of crowns). The lever arm basis of force generation is common to both vertebrates and invertebrates, and in some invertebrates this process is understood on the near atomic level. Invertebrate actomyosin is both thin (tropomyosin:troponin) and thick (primarily via direct Ca(++) binding to myosin) filament regulated, and most invertebrate muscles are dually regulated. These mechanisms are well understood on the molecular level, but the behavioral utility of dual regulation is less so. The phosphorylation state of the thick filament associated giant protein, twitchin, has been recently shown to be the molecular basis of catch. The molecular basis of the stretch activation underlying asynchronous muscle activity, however, remains unresolved.

A comparison of the mechanical and structural properties of fibrin fibers with other protein fibers

In the past few years a great deal of progress has been made in studying the mechanical and structural properties of biological protein fibers. Here, we compare and review the stiffness (Young's modulus, E) and breaking strain (also called rupture strain or extensibility, epsilon(max)) of numerous biological protein fibers in light of the recently reported mechanical properties of fibrin fibers. Emphasis is also placed on the structural features and molecular mechanisms that endow biological protein fibers with their respective mechanical properties. Generally, stiff biological protein fibers have a Young's modulus on the order of a few Gigapascal and are not very extensible (epsilon(max) < 20%). They also display a very regular arrangement of their monomeric units. Soft biological protein fibers have a Young's modulus on the order of a few Megapascal and are very extensible (epsilon(max) > 100%). These soft, extensible fibers employ a variety of molecular mechanisms, such as extending amorphous regions or unfolding protein domains, to accommodate large strains. We conclude our review by proposing a novel model of how fibrin fibers might achieve their extremely large extensibility, despite the regular arrangement of the monomeric fibrin units within a fiber. We propose that fibrin fibers accommodate large strains by two major mechanisms: (1) an alpha-helix to beta-strand conversion of the coiled coils; (2) a partial unfolding of the globular C-terminal domain of the gamma-chain.

Passive stiffness in Drosophila indirect flight muscle reduced by disrupting paramyosin phosphorylation, but not by embryonic myosin S2 hinge substitution

High passive stiffness is one of the characteristic properties of the asynchronous indirect flight muscle (IFM) found in many insects like Drosophila. To evaluate the effects of two thick filament protein domains on passive sarcomeric stiffness, and to investigate their correlation with IFM function, we used microfabricated cantilevers and a high resolution imaging system to study the passive IFM myofibril stiffness of two groups of transgenic Drosophila lines. One group (hinge-switch mutants) had a portion of the endogenous S2 hinge region replaced by an embryonic version; the other group (paramyosin mutants) had one or more putative phosphorylation sites near the N-terminus of paramyosin disabled. Both transgenic groups showed severely compromised flight ability. In this study, we found no difference (compared to the control) in passive elastic modulus in the hinge-switch group, but a 15% reduction in the paramyosin mutants. All results were corroborated by muscle fiber mechanics experiments performed on the same lines. The fact that myofibril elasticity is unaffected by hinge switching implies alternative S2 hinges do not critically affect passive sarcomere stiffness. In contrast, the mechanical defects observed upon disrupting paramyosin phosphorylation sites in Drosophila suggests that paramyosin phosphorylation is important for maintaining high passive stiffness in IFM myofibrils, probably by affecting paramyosin's interaction with other sarcomeric proteins.