4.5 Article

Two mutations in troponin I that cause hypertrophic cardiomyopathy have contrasting effects on cardiac muscle contractility

期刊

BIOCHEMICAL JOURNAL
卷 362, 期 -, 页码 443-451

出版社

PORTLAND PRESS LTD
DOI: 10.1042/0264-6021:3620443

关键词

calcium; motility; regulation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

We investigated the effects of two mutations in human cardiac troponin I, Arg(145) --> Gly and Gly(203) --> Ser, that are reported to cause familial hypertrophic cardiomyopathy. Mutant and wildtype troponin I, overexpressed in Escherichia coli, were used to reconstitute troponin complexes in vanadate-treated guinea pig cardiac trabeculae skinned fibres, and thin filaments were reconstituted with human cardiac troponin and tropomyosin along with rabbit skeletal muscle actin for in vitro motility and actomyosin ATPase assays. Troponin containing the Ar-145 --> Gly mutation inhibited force in skinned trabeculae less than did the wild-type, and had almost no inhibitory function in the in vitro motility assay. There was an enhanced inhibitory function with mixtures of 10-30% [Gly(145)]troponin I with the wild-type protein. Skinned trabeculae reconstituted with troponin I containing the Gly(203) --> Ser mutation and troponin C produced less Ca2+-activated force (64+/-8% of wild-type) and demonstrated lower Ca2+ sensitivity [DeltapCa(50) (log of the Ca2+ concentration that gave 50% of maximal activation) 0.25 unit (P < 0.05)] compared with wild-type troponin I, but thin filaments containing [Ser(203)]-troponin I were indistinguishable from those containing the wildtype protein in in vitro motility and ATPase assays. Thus these two mutations each result in hypertrophic cardiomyopathy, but have opposite effects on the overall contractility of the muscle in the systems we investigated, indicating either that we have not yet identified the relevant alteration in contractility for the Gly203 --> Ser mutation, or that the disease does not result directly from any particular alteration in contractility.

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

4.5
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