Biophysical Journal 60: 679-689 (1991)
© 1991 the Biophysical Society

This Article Full Text (PDF) Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Schoenberg, M Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Schoenberg, M

Equilibrium muscle cross-bridge behavior. Theoretical considerations. II. Model describing the behavior of strongly-binding cross-bridges when both heads of myosin bind to the actin filament.

Laboratory of Physical Biology, National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland 20892.

ABSTRACT

A model has been developed for characterizing the interaction between strongly-binding myosin cross-bridges and actin in muscle fibers under equilibrium conditions where both heads of the myosin cross-bridge bind to actin. The model, that of Anderson and Schoenberg (1987. Biophys. J. 52:1077-1082) is quite similar to that of Schoenberg (1985. Biophys. J. 48:467-475), except that explicit account is taken of the fact that each crossbridge has two heads which can bind to actin. The key assumption that allows this model to explain a large body of data unexplained by the Schoenberg (1985) model is that the two crossbridge heads are not totally independent of one another after attachment. After the first head attaches, the second head is then free to attach only to an actin site distal to the first head. This means that when the more distally attached head subsequently detaches and reattaches (as the heads continually do), it will not reattach in a position of lesser strain and reduce the force it supports, but instead will remain attached in its strained position until the proximally attached head also detaches. This model gives an explanation for two important and otherwise unexplained observations made previously: it explains why at ionic strengths in the range of 50-120 mM, (a) the rate constant of force decay after a small stretch is a sigmoidal function of nucleotide analogue concentration, and (b) why in the presence of analogues or in rigor the rate constant of force decay after a small stretch is significantly slower than the rate constant for myosin subfragment-1 detachment from actin in solution.