Orientation of actin filaments during motion in in vitro motility assay

Changes in actin and myosin structural dynamics due to their weak and strong interactions

Figure 3 summarizes the effects of actomyosin binding on the internal and global dynamics of either protein, as discussed in this chapter. These effects depend primarily on the strength of the interaction; which in turn depends on the state of the nucleotide at the myosin active site. When either no nucleotide or ADP is bound, the interaction is strong and the effect on each protein is maximal. When the nucleotide is ATP or ADP.Pi, or the equivalent nonhydrolyzable analogs, the interaction is weak and the effect on molecular dynamics of each protein is minimal. The weaker effects in weak-binding states are not simply the reflection of lower occupancy of binding sites--the molecular models in Fig. 3 illustrate the effects of the formation of the ternary complex, after correction for the free actin and myosin in the system. Thus EPR on myosin (Berger and Thomas 1991; Thomas et al. 1995) and pyrene fluorescence studies on actin (Geeves 1991) have shown that the formation of a ternary complex has a negligible effect on the internal dynamics of both [figure: see text] proteins (left side of Fig. 3, white arrows). As shown by both EPR (Baker et al. 1998; Roopnarine et al. 1998) and phosphorescence (Ramachandran and Thomas 1999), both domains of myosin are dynamically disordered in weak-binding states, and this is essentially unaffected by the formation of the ternary complex (left side of Fig. 3, indicated by disordered myosin domains). The only substantial effect of the formation of the weak interaction that has been reported is the EPR-detected (Ostap and Thomas 1991) restriction of the global dynamics of actin upon weak myosin binding (left column of Fig. 3, gray arrow). The effects of strong actomyosin formation are much more dramatic. While substantial rotational dynamics, both internal and global, exist in both myosin and actin in the presence of ADP or the absence of nucleotides, spin label EPR, pyrene fluorescence, and phosphorescence all show dramatic restrictions in these motions upon formation of the strong ternary complex (right column of Fig. 3). One implication of this is that the weak-to-strong transition is accompanied by a disorder-to-order transition in both actin and myosin, and this is itself an excellent candidate for the structural change that produces force (Thomas et al. 1995). Another clear implication is that the crystal structures obtained for isolated myosin and actin are not likely to be reliable representations of structures that exist in ternary complexes of these proteins (Rayment et al. 1993a and 1993b; Dominguez et al. 1998; Houdusse et al. 1999). This is clearly true of the strong-binding states, since the spectroscopic studies indicate consistently that substantial changes occur in both proteins upon strong complex formation. For the weak complexes, the problem is not that complex formation induces large structural changes, but that the structures themselves are dynamically disordered. This is probably why so many different structures have been obtained for myosin S1 with nucleotides bound--each crystal is selecting one of the many different substates represented by the dynamic ensemble. Finally, there is the problem that the structures of actomyosin complexes are probably influenced strongly by their mechanical coupling to muscle protein lattice (Baker at al. 2000). Thus, even if co-crystals of actin and myosin are obtained in the future, an accurate description of the structural changes involved in force generation will require further experiments using site-directed spectroscopic probes of both actin and myosin, in order to detect the structural dynamics of these ternary complexes under physiological conditions.

Actin protofilament orientation at the erythrocyte membrane

The short actin filaments in the erythrocyte's membrane skeleton are shown to be largely oriented tangent to the lipid bilayer. Actin "proto"-filaments have previously been described as junctional centers intertriangulated by spectrin; however, the protofilaments may simultaneously serve as pinning centers between the network and the overlying bilayer. The latter function now seems of particular importance because near-normal network assembly has been reported with transgenic mouse sphero-erythrocytes that lack the primary linkage protein Band 3. To assess possible physical constraints on actin protofilaments in intact membranes, fluorescence polarization microscopy (FPM) has been used to study rhodamine phalloidin-labeled red cell ghosts. A basis for interpreting FPM images of cells is provided by FPM applied to isolated actin filaments. These are labeled with the same rhodamine probes and imaged at various orientations with respect to the polarizers, including filament orientations perpendicular to the image plane. High aperture and fluorophore conjugation effects are found to be minimal, enabling development of a simple, semi-empirical model which indicates that protofilaments are generally within approximately 20 degrees of the membrane tangent plane.

Orientation of cross-bridges in skeletal muscle measured with a hydrophobic probe

Cis-parinaric acid (PA) binds to a hydrophobic pocket formed between the heavy chain of myosin subfragment-1 (S1) and the 41-residue N-terminal of essential light chain 1 (A1). The binding is strong (Ka = 5.6 x 10(7) M-1) and rigid (polarization = 0.334). PA does not bind to myofibrils in which A1 has been extracted or replaced with alkali light chain 2 (A2). As in the case of S1 labeled with other probes, polarization of fluorescence of S1-PA added to myofibrils depended on fractional saturation of actin filament with S1, i.e., on whether the filaments were fully or partially saturated with myosin heads. Because fluorescence quantum yield of PA is enhanced manyfold upon binding, and because PA binds weakly to myofibrillar structures other then A1, the dye is a convenient probe of cross-bridge orientation in native muscle fibers. The polarization of a fiber irrigated with PA was equal to the polarization of S1-PA added to fibers at nonsaturating concentration. Cross-linking of S1 added to fibers at nonsaturating concentration showed that each S1 bound to two actin monomers of a thin filament. These results suggest that in rigor rabbit psoas muscle fiber each myosin cross-bridge binds to two actins.

Phase transitions and the molecular mechanism of contraction

In this paper, the rotating cross-bridge mechanism for muscle contraction is discussed and much contradictory evidence is put forward. As an alternative, a model is given in which the motor of muscle contraction is placed in the myosin-rod hinge and/or in the actin filament. No definite choice for one of the proposed models can be made yet, although it is clear that some kind of phase transition plays an important role in the mechanism.

Binding of S1(A1) and S1(A2) to F-actin

The binding curve of myosin subfragment-1 (S1) to F-actin is not a simple hyperbola: at high concentrations of S1 the binding curve can be transformed into a linear plot ("normal" binding), but at small concentrations of S1 the binding complications deform the binding curve and produce nonlinear transforms ("anomalous" binding) [Andreev, O. A., & Borejdo, J. (1992) J. Muscle Res. Cell Motil. 13, 523-533]. This anomalous behavior may result either from the heterogeneity of S1 in regard to light chain isoforms or from the cooperativity between S1's. To distinguish between these possibilities we measured the affinity and the orientation of S1(A1) and S1(A2) with respect to F-actin. Affinity was measured in vitro by ultracentrifugation in the presence of F-actin, and orientation was measured in vivo by a combination of polarization of fluorescence and linear dichroism. We found that both the affinity and the orientation depended on the relative concentration of S1 isomer and actin: when S1 was in excess or was equimolar with actin (filament saturated with S1), each isomer bound F-actin with an affinity of 2 x 10(6) M-1 and was oriented approximately perpendicularly to the muscle axis. When actin was in excess (filament unsaturated with S1), each isomer bound F-actin with an affinity of 1.2 x 10(7) M-1 and was oriented more parallel to the muscle axis. S1(A1) and S1(A2) labeled on the light chain had different polarizations when bound to unsaturated filaments but had the same polarizations when bound to saturated filaments. These results excluded heterogeneity as a reason for anomalous binding and suggested that binding occurred with negative cooperativity. We think that the negative cooperativity occurs when saturation of actin filaments with heads leads to the lack of vacant adjacent sites on a filament and a consequent prevention of S1 binding to two actin protomers.