4.0 Article

Dynamics of actin and α-actinin in nascent myofibrils and stress fibers

期刊

出版社

KLUWER ACADEMIC PUBL
DOI: 10.1023/A:1010374424143

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Actin labeled with fluorescein isothiocyanate (FITC) and alpha -actinin labeled with rhodamine (rh) were co-injected into chick embryonic cardiac myocytes and fibroblasts. In cardiomyocytes, FITC-actin was distributed in nonstriated lines, linearly arranged punctate structures with short intervals, and cross-striated bands with regular sarcomeric intervals. rh-alpha -Actinin was seen to be distributed in the same pattern in the former two portions, and in the center of each striation in the latter portion. Photobleaching of structures incorporated with these fluorescent analogs revealed that the fluorescent recovery rate of actin decreased in the order of nonstriated > punctated > striated portions, while that of alpha -actinin was low and stable at all portions. During the transition phase from punctate to regular sarcomere structures of these proteins, short spaced alpha -actinin dots adjoined each other and aligned with Z bands of neighboring myofibrils. It appears that both the difference in exchangeability between actin and alpha -actinin molecules and the movement of alpha -actinin dots during this phase of myofibrillogenesis are related to sarcomere lengthening and I-Z-I brush formation; adjoining dots of low-exchangeable alpha -actinin may provide favorable situations for exchangeable actin molecules in filaments to elongate and/or rearrange. In fibroblasts, both FITC-actin and rh-alpha -actinin formed nonstriated lines. In these cells, exchangeabilities of both proteins were high and similar in rate. This seems to indicate that stress fibers are constantly exchanging their components for motile and other vital functions of these cells. The high exchangeabilities of both proteins in stress fibers show that these fibers are clearly different from nonstriated, stress-fiber like structures of nascent myofibrils.

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

4.0
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