4.8 Article

Simple mechanochemistry describes the dynamics of kinesin molecules

出版社

NATL ACAD SCIENCES
DOI: 10.1073/pnas.141080498

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Recently, Block and coworkers [Visscher, K., Schnitzer, M. J., & Block, S. M. (1999) Nature (London) 400, 184-189 and Schnitzer, M. J., Visscher, K. & Block, S. M. (2000) Nat. Cell Biol. 2, 718-723] have reported extensive observations of individual kinesin molecules moving along microtubules in vitro under controlled loads, F = 1 to 8 pN, with [ATP] = 1 muM to 2 mM. Their measurements of velocity, V randomness, r, stalling force, and mean run length, L, reveal a need for improved theoretical understanding. We show, presenting explicit formulae that provide a quantitative basis for comparing distinct molecular motors, that their data are satisfactorily described by simple, discrete-state, sequential stochastic models. The simplest (N = 2)-state model with fixed load-distribution factors and kinetic rate constants concordant with stopped-flow experiments, accounts for the global (V, F, L, [ATP]) interdependence and, further, matches relative acceleration observed under assisting loads. The randomness, r(F,[ATP]), is accounted for by a waiting-time distribution, psi (+)(1)(t), [for the transition(s) following ATP binding] with a width parameter nu equivalent to (2)<(Deltat)(2)> similar or equal to 2.5, indicative of a dispersive stroke of mechanicity similar or equal to 0.6 or of a few (greater than or equal to nu - 1) further, kinetically coupled states: indeed, N = 4 (but not N = 3) models do well. The analysis reveals: (i) a substep of d(0) = 1.8-2.1 nm on ATP binding (consistent with structurally based suggestions); (ii) comparable load dependence for ATP binding and unbinding; (iii) a strong load dependence for reverse hydrolysis and subsequent reverse rates; and (iv) a large (greater than or equal to 50-fold) increase in detachment rate, with a marked load dependence, following ATP binding.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.8
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据