The actin cytoskeleton is a complex structure that performs a wide range of cellular functions. In 2001, significant advances were made to our understanding of the structure and function of actin monomers. Many of these are likely to help us understand and distinguish between the structural models of actin microfilaments. In particular, 1) the structure of actin was resolved from crystals in the absence of cocrystallized actin binding proteins (ABPs), 2) the prokaryotic ancestral gene of actin was crystallized and its function as a bacterial cytoskeleton was revealed, and 3) the structure of the Arp2/3 complex was described for the first time. In this review we selected several ABPs (ADF/cofilin, profilin, gelsolin, thymosin beta4, DNase I, CapZ, tropomodulin, and Arp2/3) that regulate actin-driven assembly, i.e., movement that is independent of motor proteins. They were chosen because 1) they represent a family of related proteins, 2) they are widely distributed in nature, 3) an atomic structure (or at least a plausible model) is available for each of them, and 4) each is expressed in significant quantities in cells. These ABPs perform the following cellular functions: 1) they maintain the population of unassembled but assembly-ready actin monomers (profilin), 2) they regulate the state of polymerization of filaments (ADF/cofilin, profilin), 3) they bind to and block the growing ends of actin filaments (gelsolin), 4) they nucleate actin assembly (gelsolin, Arp2/3, cofilin), 5) they sever actin filaments (gelsolin, ADF/cofilin), 6) they bind to the sides of actin filaments (gelsolin, Arp2/3), and 7) they cross-link actin filaments (Arp2/3). Some of these ABPs are essential, whereas others may form regulatory ternary complexes. Some play crucial roles in human disorders, and for all of them, there are good reasons why investigations into their structures and functions should continue.

The multiple causes and multiple consequences of mammalian heart failure make it an attractive proposition for analysis using gene array technology, especially where the failure is idiopathic in nature. However, gene arrays also hold potential artefacts, particularly when gene expression levels are low, and where changes in expression levels are modest. Also, at present, the number of genes available on arrays is not large enough to prevent potential sampling deficiencies. Thus, it may not be wise to place too much reliance on quantitative interpretations of gene array data. Also, recently doubts were raised about the qualitative reliability of array genes. Electrophoretic methods are slow, cumbersome and complex but they can provide confirmation that the trends and numbers arising from the new gene arrays are reliable. In this overview, we compare gene array data with data from protein activity assays such as zymograms, Western blots, two-dimensional electrophoresis, and immunohistochemistry. Similar or complementary data from the same heart tissues analyzed by either microarrays or macroarrays can be reassuring to those interested in reliable molecular analyses of normal and failing hearts. Similar principles will apply to other tissues and cells.

We examine the reliability and accuracy of gene array technology in analyzing differences in gene expression between human non-diseased left atrium and left ventricle. We have used cDNA gene arrays and validated those data by carefully designed quantitative real-time polymerase chain reaction (PCR). We have identified pitfalls using cDNA gene array technology based on comparisons with other gene array studies and with changes reported for the levels of expression of the genes corresponding to these cDNAs. The high error rate reported here underscores the cautionary comments reported by others in this field.

No abstract

Recent developments in microarray technology in determining the protein and gene content of cellular extracts will allow, on a much larger scale, the characterization of genes and proteins that change due to heart failure.