Comparative study of myosins present in the lateral muscle of some fish: species variations in myosin isoforms and their distribution in red, pink and white muscle

Abstract

Myosin isoforms and their distribution in the various fibre types of the lateral muscle of eight teleost fish (representing a wide range of taxonomic groups and lifestyles) were investigated electrophoretically, histochemically and immunohistochemically. Polyclonal antisera were raised against slow (red muscle) and fast (white muscle) myosins of the mullet, and used to stain sections of lateral muscle. Antisera specific for fast and slow myosin heavy chains only (anti-FHC and anti-SHC respectively) and for whole fast and slow myosins (anti-F and anti-S respectively) were obtained, and their specificity was confirmed by immunoblotting against electrophoretically separated myofibrillar proteins. The ATPase activity of myosin isoforms was examined histochemically using methods to demonstrate their acid- and alkali-lability and their Ca-Mg dependent actomyosin ATPase. As expected, the predominant myosin (and fibre) type in the red muscle showed an alkali-labile ATPase activity, reacted with the anti-S and anti-SHC sera (but not anti-F or anti-FHC) and contained two 'slow' light chains, whereas the predominant myosin (and fibre) type in the white muscle showed an alkali-stable ATPase activity, reacted with anti-F and anti-FHC sera (but not anti-S or anti-SHC) and contained three 'fast' light chains. However, superimposed upon this basic pattern were a number of variations, many of them species-related. On analysis by two-dimensional gel electrophoresis fish myosin light chains LC1s, LC2s and LC2f migrated like the corresponding light chains of mammalian myosins, but fish LC1f consistently had a more acidic pI value than mammalian LC1f. Fish LC3f varied markedly in Mr in a species-related manner: in some fish (e.g. eel and mullet) the Mr value of LC3f was less than that for the other two light chains (as in mammalian myosin), whereas in others it was similar to that of LC2f (e.g. cat-fish) or even greater (e.g. goldfish). Species differences were also seen in the relative intensity of LC1f and LC3f spots given by the fish fast myosins. In most of the fish examined the red muscle layer showed some micro-heterogeneity, containing (in addition to the typical slow fibres) small numbers of fibres with a histo- and immunohistochemical profile typical of white muscle (fast) fibres. However, other immunohistochemically distinct minority fibres were found in the red muscle of the goldfish. Three types of pink muscle were distinguished: a mosaic of immunohistochemically typical red and white fibres (e.g. grey mullet).(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 400 WORDS)

Muscle differentiation in blackspot seabream (Pagellus bogaraveo, Brunnich): Histochemical and immunohistochemical study of the fibre types

“…In Pagellus bogaraveo small diameter fibres appeared in the fast-white muscle between 70 and 100 days post-hatching, i.e., in early juvenile life, and this was reflected in a wide range of fibre sizes that gave the mosaic appearance in cross sections. The ATPase and immunoreactivity profiles of the small diameter fibres in mosaic fast-white muscle vary widely among species (Rowlerson et al, 1985;Romanello et al, 1987;Scapolo et al, 1988;Higgins, 1990;Sänger and Stoiber, 2001). However, in Pagellus bogaraveo we observed the same picture found in Sparus aurata , where the small diameter fibres in the fast-white muscle differed from the large diameter ones only in their ATPase reactivity.…”

“…The embryonic and larval phases of muscle growth are followed by a second period of myofibre formation in the fast-white muscle (Weatherley and Gill, 1981;Weatherley et al, 1988). The new wave of hyperplastic growth gives rise to a typical mosaic appearance of muscle fibres, as seen in transverse section, where fibres of different sizes intermingle (Carpenè and Veggetti, 1981;Rowlerson et al, 1985;Romanello et al, 1987;Scapolo et al, 1988). This second period of myofibre formation is greatly reduced or entirely absent in species that remain small in their ultimate size, such as Danio rerio (Hamilton) (Patterson et al, 2008) and Poecilia reticulata (Peters) (Veggetti et al, 1993), respectively.…”

Expression of the myosin light chains 1, 2 and 3 in the muscle of blackspot seabream (Pagellus bogaraveo, Brunnich), during development

“…In common with terrestrial vertebrates, distinct isoforms of the myofibrillar proteins, chiefly myosin, have been described in white-fast and red-slow fish muscle fibres, with great variability between taxa (Focant et al 1976;Rowlerson et al 1985;Karasinski and Kilarski 1989;Devoto et al 1996). In fish, the components of the myosin complex differ between slow and fast muscle, for example different forms of MHC are found in the two muscle types (Scapolo et al 1988;Karasinski and Kilarski 1989;Martinez et al 1990) and there are two types of MLC in slow muscles, and three types in fast muscle (Rowlerson et al 1985;Karasinski and Kilarski 1989;Martinez et al 1990).…”

“…In fish, the components of the myosin complex differ between slow and fast muscle, for example different forms of MHC are found in the two muscle types (Scapolo et al 1988;Karasinski and Kilarski 1989;Martinez et al 1990) and there are two types of MLC in slow muscles, and three types in fast muscle (Rowlerson et al 1985;Karasinski and Kilarski 1989;Martinez et al 1990). …”

Dietary protein content influences both growth and size distribution of anterior and posterior muscle fibres in juveniles of Pagellus bogaraveo (Brunnich)

“…In many fishes, a long-term hyperplastic growth is the likely cause of the so-called ''mosaic appearance'' of the white muscle, which can be either restricted to particular seasonal periods or permanent, depending on the species. Indeed, the smallest fibres are thought to be the newly generated ones (Carpenè and Veggetti 1981;Rowlerson et al 1985). The rates of muscle fibre hypertrophy and hyperplasia for reaching a given girth vary among species and different strains of a species (Weatherley et al 1979) and can be influenced by controlled rearing conditions, such as diet (Kiessling et al 1991;Fauconneau et al 1997;Johnston et al 2002), exercise training (Johnston and Moon 1980) and temperature (Ayala et al 2000(Ayala et al , 2001López-Albors et al 2003).…”