Mf. Schmid et Hf. Epstein, MUSCLE THICK FILAMENTS ARE RIGID COUPLED TUBULES, NOT FLEXIBLE ROPES, Cell motility and the cytoskeleton, 41(3), 1998, pp. 195-201
Understanding the structures of thick filaments and their relation to
muscle contraction has been an important problem in muscle biology. Th
e flexural rigidity of natural thick filaments isolated from Caenorhab
ditis elegans as determined by statistical analysis of their electron
microscopic images shows that they are considerably more rigid (persis
tence length = 263 mu m) than similarly analyzed synthetic actin filam
ents (6 mu m) or duplex DNA (0.05 mu m), which are known to be helical
ropes. Indeed, cores of C. elegans thick filaments, having only 11% o
f the mass per unit length of intact thick filaments, are quite rigid
(85 mu m) compared with the thick filaments. Cores comprise the backbo
nes of the thick filaments and are composed of tubules containing seve
n subfilaments cross-linked by non-myosin proteins. Microtubules recon
stituted from rubulin and microtubule-associated proteins are nearly a
s rigid (55 mu m) as the cores. We propose a model of coupled tubules
as the structural basis for the observed rigidity of natural thick fil
aments and other linear structures such as microtubules. A similar mod
el was recently presented for microtubules [Felgner et al., 1997]. Thi
s coupled tubule model may also explain the differences in flexural ri
gidity between natural rabbit skeletal muscle thick filaments (27 mu m
) or synthetic thick filaments reconstituted from myosin and myosin bi
nding protein C (36 mu m) and those reconstituted from purified myosin
(9 mu m). The more flexible myosin structures may be helical ropes li
ke F-actin or DNA, whereas the more rigid muscle or synthetic thick fi
laments which contain myosin and myosin binding protein C may be const
ructed of subfilaments coupled into tubules as in C. elegans cores. Th
e observed thick filament rigidity is necessary for the incompressibil
ity and lack of flexure observed with thick filaments in contracting s
keletal muscle. Cell Motil. Cytoskeleton 41:195-201, 1998. (C) 1998 Wi
ley-Liss, Inc.