Time-resolved fluorescence depolarization measurements of F-actin binding to myosin subfragments-1 bearing different alkali light chains

Self Cite

Fluorescence energy transfer was used to examine the spatial proximity between two key side chains in myosin subfragment 1 (S-1), viz., the reactive thiol (SH1) located on the C-terminal 20K tryptic fragment and the reactive lysyl (RLR) on the N-terminal 27K tryptic fragment of S-1 heavy chain. S-1 was specifically labeled at SH1 with an energy donor, N-(iodoacetyl)-N'-(5-sulfo-1-naphthyl)ethylenediamine (AEDANS), and at RLR with an energy acceptor, 2,4,6,-trinitrobenzenesulfonate (TNBS). Prior blocking of SH1 with AEDANS increased the pK of RLR from 9.04 to 9.42. Trinitrophenylation of SH1-blocked S-1 was about 50% slower and sharply reduced the Ca2+ ATPase activity. Reciprocally, blocking of RLR with TNBS slowed the rate of reaction of SH1 and AEDANS by 40-60%. Addition of the second label does not grossly alter the conformation resulting from the first label. S-1 labeled at RLR with TNBS and at SH1 with optically inert iodoacetamide shows the same TNP difference spectrum +/- MgADP (lambda min 365 nm) as S-1 with S 1 free. Also, S-1 labeled at SH1 with AEDANS and at RLR with an optically inert methyl group shows the same AEDANS emission spectrum (lambda em max 475 nm), excited-state lifetime (tau = 20.3 ns) and rotational correlation time (phi = 106 ns) as S-1 with RLR free. When the decrease of either the quantum yield or the excited-state lifetime of the donor in the absence and presence of the acceptor was measured, the energy transfer efficiency was found to be 70%. The apparent interchromophore distance was calculated to be 2.6 nm through the use of the Förster equation with an uncertainty of less than 12%.

Section: Resultssupporting

confidence: 89%

Spatial relationship between a fast-reacting thiol and a reactive lysine residue of myosin subfragment 1

Takashi¹,

Mühlrád²,

Botts³

1982

Self Cite

“…Therefore, the difference in affinity of (Al)S-l and (A2)S-1 for actin at low ionic strength is maintained even in the absence of nucleotide. Wadzinski et al (1979) reported that, in the absence of nucleotide, (Al)S-l and (A2)S-1 bind to actin with similar affinities. However, their measurements were all done at ionic strengths greater than 100 mM under which conditions we also found no difference in affinity between the two species.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 98%

Interaction of isozymes of myosin subfragment 1 with actin: effect of ionic strength and nucleotide

Chalovich¹,

Stein²,

Greene³

et al. 1984

Myosin subfragment 1 (S-1) can be fractionated into two isozymes, (A1)S-1 containing alkali light chain 1 and (A2)S-1 containing alkali light chain 2. The predominant difference in the behavior of the two isozymes of S-1 is that, at low ionic strength, the actin concentration required for half-maximal ATPase activity is considerably lower for (A1)S-1 than for (A2)S-1; that is, the apparent binding constant KATPase for (A1)S-1 is greater than KATPase for (A2)S-1 [Weeds, A.G., & Taylor, R.S. (1975) Nature (London) 257, 54-56]. This difference disappears at high ionic strength [Wagner, P. D., Slater, C. S., Pope, B., & Weeds, A.G. (1979) Eur. J. Biochem. 99, 385-394]. In the present study we investigated whether the difference in the KATPase values of (A1)S-1 and (A2)S-1 is due to a difference in the actual affinity of these S-1 isozymes for actin. Binding was measured in the presence of ATP and AMP-PNP and in the absence of nucleotide at varied ionic strengths. We found that at low ionic strength where KATPase is several times stronger for (A1)S-1 than for (A2)S-1, the binding of (A1)S-1 to actin is correspondingly stronger than that of (A2)S-1 irrespective of the nucleotide present. Furthermore, as the ionic strength is increased, just as the difference between the KATPase values for (A1)S-1 and (A2)S-1 disappears so too does the difference in the affinity of the two isozymes for actin.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)

“…Differences between the heads do not affect the following discussion because S-1 data represent an average which may be compared with the HMM data. Furthermore, the two S-l species isolated by Yagi and Otani (1974) and Weeds and Taylor (1975) appear to have the same rigor association constant (Wadzinski et al, 1977). A priori, several modes of binding are possible for HMM.…”

Section: Hmm-actin Bindingmentioning

confidence: 86%

Heavy meromyosin binds actin with negative cooperativity

Highsmith¹

1978

Self Cite

The association of fluorescently labeled heavy meromyosin (HMM) and F-actin was measured by time-resolved fluorescence depolarization. The effects of varying the protein concentrations, temperature, KCl concentration, and pH were determined. Measurements of HMM mobility supported a model of no interaction between the two heads in the absence of actin. Measurements of actin binding, when compared with results for myosin subfragment I, indicated that the two heads of HMM do not bind independently in the rigor complex. This could result from actin-transmitted negative cooperativity or from steric inhibition due to the structure of HMM. For HMM and actin in 0.15 7 kcl at 25 degrees C: Ka = 3.9 X 10(7) M-1, deltaHco' = 36 +/- 2 J M-1, deltaSco' = 0.26 +/- 0.02 kJ M-1 K-1; the slope of ln Ka vs. [KCl]1/2 = -3.88 and the pH of maximum association was 6.9.