This Article Abstract Full Text (PDF) All Versions of this Article: biophysj.105.070888v1 91/7/2475    most recent 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 HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Skau, K. I. Articles by Turner, M. S. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Skau, K. I. Articles by Turner, M. S.

A Kinetic Model Describing the Processivity of Myosin-V

Karl I. Skau ^* , Rebecca B. Hoyle ^* and Matthew S. Turner 

^* Department of Mathematics, University of Surrey, Guildford, Surrey, United Kingdom; and Department of Physics, Warwick University, Coventry, United Kingdom

Correspondence: Address reprint requests to Dr. Mathew S. Turner, Tel.: 44-24-7652-2257; E-mail: m.s.turner{at}warwick.ac.uk; or to Dr. Rebecca B. Hoyle, Tel.: 44-1483-682638; E-mail: r.hoyle{at}surrey.ac.uk.

	ABSTRACT

TOP ABSTRACT INTRODUCTION MODEL REACTION RATES PARAMETERS OPTIMIZATION RESULTS DISCUSSION APPENDIX A: ANALYTICAL... APPENDIX B: COST FUNCTION ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS REFERENCES

 
The precise details of how myosin-V coordinates the biochemical reactions and mechanical motions of its two head elements to engineer effective processive molecular motion along actin filaments remain unresolved. We compare a quantitative kinetic model of the myosin-V walk, consisting of five basic states augmented by two further states to allow for futile hydrolysis and detachments, with experimental results for run lengths, velocities, and dwell times and their dependence on bulk nucleotide concentrations and external loads in both directions. The model reveals how myosin-V can use the internal strain in the molecule to synchronize the motion of the head elements. Estimates for the rate constants in the reaction cycle and the internal strain energy are obtained by a computational comparison scheme involving an extensive exploration of the large parameter space. This scheme exploits the fact that we have obtained analytic results for our reaction network, e.g., for the velocity but also the run length, diffusion constant, and fraction of backward steps. The agreement with experiment is often reasonable but some open problems are highlighted, in particular the inability of such a general model to reproduce the reported dependence of run length on ADP concentration. The novel way that our approach explores parameter space means that any confirmed discrepancies should give new insights into the reaction network model.

	INTRODUCTION

TOP ABSTRACT INTRODUCTION MODEL REACTION RATES PARAMETERS OPTIMIZATION RESULTS DISCUSSION APPENDIX A: ANALYTICAL... APPENDIX B: COST FUNCTION ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS REFERENCES

 
A myosin protein is an ATPase which gains enzymatic activity by attaching to an actin filament (1–3). The myosin proteins use the chemical energy released in ATP-hydrolysis to create directed mechanical motion. More than 100 proteins have been identified as belonging to the myosin superfamily and they are organized into some 18 subgroups (1,4). A myosin is identified by a conserved 80 kDa motor domain and it is usually assumed that all the myosin motor proteins share the same biochemical reaction pathway when hydrolyzing ATP (1). The most studied of the myosins is the nonprocessive (muscle) myosin II whose main reaction path is found to follow the classical Lymn-Taylor scheme (5) describing the correlation of mechanical and chemical events.

Myosin-V is a dimeric protein involved in the intracellular transport of a variety of cargos. The neck region of the two head elements is three times the length of the corresponding region of the myosin II heads (6). It is generally assumed that the long neck region acts as a lever arm and the size of the protein makes it possible for myosin-V to walk hand-over-hand (7–10) following the helical repeat of actin. Myosin-V was the first molecular motor shown to be processive along actin filaments (11). Previously established processive motors like kinesin and dynein use microtubules as the track for their processive directed motion, or in the case of RNA polymerase, DNA. Naturally, there has been much interest both in confirming the processive motion of myosin-V and in gaining insight into the details of the molecule's motion using recent developments in experimental techniques (7–26). Similarly, several theoretical models of the myosin-V walk with different levels of detail have been proposed (12,13,20,22–25,27–31).

How myosin-V coordinates the biochemical reactions and mechanical motions of the two head elements of the protein to become an effective processive molecular motor is an open question. While there is a general agreement on the enzymatic reaction path for a single myosin head, the details of how myosin-V keeps the two heads' reaction cycles in phase is still unresolved. Likewise, there is still a lack of understanding of how external forces directly influence the kinetic mechanism of the walk and what role the internal strain in the molecule plays. As a result of the large number of measurements made on myosin-V in recent years, this is an appropriate time to make more detailed, quantitative models of the myosin-V walk, and to see how such models compare with what is found experimentally.

The outline of the article is as follows: we first establish our model for the processive walk of myosin-V and explain the model's underlying assumptions. In Reaction Rates and Appendix A, we present analytic results for our, rather general, reaction network. These include the velocity, run length, diffusion constant, and fraction of backward steps. These observable quantities are functions that depend on a number of parameters (mainly characteristic energies for the various transitions between states). The unknown parameters are estimated by optimizing the agreement of the model with a chosen representative set of experimental results. This approach, which is based on defining a cost function, is outlined in Optimization. We then present quantitative results for the optimized parameters and compare them with available experimental data and end with a discussion. Agreement with experiment is generally reasonable, though we are unable to explain the trend of the run length with varying ADP concentration. We discuss how our approach might be used to explore such possible discrepancies between existing reaction network models and experiment, generating new insights into the myosin V stepping mechanism.

	MODEL

TOP ABSTRACT INTRODUCTION MODEL REACTION RATES PARAMETERS OPTIMIZATION RESULTS DISCUSSION APPENDIX A: ANALYTICAL... APPENDIX B: COST FUNCTION ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS REFERENCES

 
The reaction network for our model is sketched in Fig. 1. The main reaction cycle contains states 1–5. In state 4 the rear head starts its reaction cycle by releasing ADP, while the front head will not react before the whole cycle has been completed making it the new rear head. In state 5 the rear head is in the rigor state with no nucleotide attached, and the rear head will detach rapidly from the actin filament when it reacts with ATP from the bulk. The mechanical motion that moves the rear head into the front position is found experimentally to happen in two steps (22,25), from position 1 to position 2, and then from position 2 to position 3. In state 3 the front head is weakly attached to actin, so only one head is strongly attached in states 1–3, making these the more vulnerable states for total detachment of the molecule from actin. When inorganic phosphate P_i is released from the lead head, going from state 3 to state 4, the myosin binds strongly to actin and the lead head makes the so-called powerstroke. Since the rear head is still attached, the lead head will not achieve the usual post-powerstroke angle with the actin filament, which will cause internal strain in the molecule. This is consistent with electron microscopy (EM) images (9,20) which show strongly bound myosin-V to take a position similar to a telemark-skier's stance, indicating large internal strain in the molecule.

View larger version (22K): [in this window] [in a new window]   FIGURE 1  Sketch of the complete reaction network of the model. The Y-shaped molecule is the myosin-V protein which walks on actin filaments. The black actin monomers indicate the attachment sites spaced at 36 nm. The labels T, D, and Pi stand for ATP, ADP, and inorganic phosphate, respectively, being bound to the head.

The main reaction path is reversible in the sense that one could, in principle, run the ATP hydrolysis reaction in reverse by pulling the motor backward with an external force. (This would not be a very effective way to produce ATP since the motor is kinetically tuned to move efficiently in one direction only.) It is important for a model that aims to investigate the mechanism of a motor protein also to include the effect of futile cycles and detachment rates. Futile cycles consume ATP without creating any net movement of the molecule while detachment limits the run length of the molecule. If, in an evolutionary sense, myosin-V were to tune the reaction rates of the motor domain, it might well seek to maximize the forward velocity (requiring "weak binding"). However, it should probably also seek to minimize the impact of futile cycles and detachment rates (requiring "strong binding"). The kinetic parameters that arise might then be expected to correspond to a suitable compromise solution. We remark that the computational scheme for exploring parameter space that we will later describe could be used in the future to explore such evolutionary pressures and trends.

There will in general be a large number of possible unfavorable pathways, but we will assume that among these there is one dominant futile reaction cycle which takes place when the ADP in state 4 of the main cycle (Fig. 1) detaches from the front head before the rear head moves to state 6. In the futile cycle the front head then reacts with a new ATP molecule so that the molecule returns back to state 2 without having created any net movement. Similarly, we will identify what we believe to be the dominant detachment rate. We make the conjecture that the molecule is most vulnerable to detachment when only one head is attached to actin, as in state 2 (due to the high internal strain in the molecule, state 1 is a short-lived unstable state). We will assume that detachment from state 2 dominates over all other detachment rates. The mechanism of detachment will be the release of ADP followed by the binding of ATP to the rear head so that myosin-V detaches completely from the actin filament before strong attachment is achieved by the front head (state 7, Fig. 1).

The assumption we have made so far is that the main cycle is described well by the qualitative model of Rief et al. (12) where, in addition, the mechanical motion of the rear head to the front is taken in two steps. Furthermore, we assume that there is one futile cycle that dominates over all others, and that this futile cycle involves states 2 and 4 in the main cycle. Lastly, we assume that the detachment rate at state 2 dominates all others. The complete model we have outlined (shown in Figs. 1 and 2) is a minimal realistic model for the walk of a molecular motor like myosin-V.

View larger version (11K): [in this window] [in a new window]   FIGURE 2  The main and futile cycles combined in one scheme showing all the reaction paths between the seven states in the complete model. See also Fig. 1. The reaction rates are given by the corresponding equations in the text. Reaction steps which release and bind ADP, Pi, or ATP are indicated.

	REACTION RATES

TOP ABSTRACT INTRODUCTION MODEL REACTION RATES PARAMETERS OPTIMIZATION RESULTS DISCUSSION APPENDIX A: ANALYTICAL... APPENDIX B: COST FUNCTION ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS REFERENCES

(1)

where is the fundamental timescale of the reaction and k_B is the Boltzmann constant. (We use the notation where u_i and w_i are the forward and backward rates, respectively, away from state i (32).) The value is the energy barrier between state i and its neighbor state in the forward direction, while G_i is the energy difference between the two states. We set T = 298 K in this article. The total energy balance for the ATP hydrolysis is

(2)

where the nucleotide concentrations are made dimensionless by dividing by the concentrations at the reference states for G_i, [ATP]⁰ = [ADP]⁰ = [P_i]⁰ = 1 M. The standard free energy is given by (33), which is close to 13 k_BT, while G_hyd 25 k_BT at cellular conditions (2).

For the main cycle, one ends up with a total of 10 reaction rates. The first four rate constants in the main cycle are related to the mechanical movement (see Figs. 1 and 3),

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6)

where _d is a hydrodynamic timescale related to diffusion over one step-length and f_ex is the component of the external force parallel to the actin filament. The mechanical step is separated into a so-called working stroke of d_W 25 nm and a diffusional substep of d_D 11 nm (see Fig. 3), as indicated by experimental findings (22,25), giving a total step size d = d_W + d_D 36 nm (11,12,18). Thus we neglect the (weak) external force dependence of the diffusional step size in u₁ but capture the dominant effect of the force in, e.g., retarding the activated rate u₂ and in distorting the metastable shape of the bound arm in state 2 (through the terms in the exponents of w₂ and u₂). The total internal strain in the molecule E_strain defines an effective Hookeian spring constant, k_H, related to the compliance in the motor and neck region of the myosin head,

(7)

where we have assumed that the molecule is fully strained in state 1.

View larger version (9K): [in this window] [in a new window]   FIGURE 3  The mechanical movement of myosin-V takes place in two separate steps. The first step, through a distance dW 25 nm, is from the highly strained state 1 to state 2 where the internal strain balances the external force. When the molecule diffuses to state 3, through a further distance dD 11 nm, the internal strain increases to bEstrain.

Notice that the external force f_ex is defined to be positive in the direction opposite to the movement of the myosin-V molecule, and that only the influence of the force parallel to the actin filament is taken into account. (The external force is of course a vector quantity, with a possible important influence on the walk arising from the normal component of the force (35,36).) The external force will accelerate or slow down the two reaction rates w₂ and u₂ away from state 2, depending on the sign of f_ex.

Experimentally, it is found that there is one rate-limiting step in the walk of myosin-V (14–16). At large external force, f_ex, one or more substeps that couple to the force, will become rate-limiting. A phenomenological way to model this is (11)

(8)

Here _* is the (average) dwell time for one step, while ₁ and ₂ are the dwell times of the force independent and dependent substeps, respectively, and the external force couples to a distance d_eff. When fitting experimental data to this phenomenological equation, naively one would expect d_eff 36 nm, which is the average step length. Instead it was found that d_eff is between 10–15 nm. From our model this scale emerges quite naturally, since the external force couples to the diffusional search governed by rate u₂, which gives ₁ + 1/u₂. From Eq. 5 we have

(9)

where A is some constant. Here d_D is 11 nm, while the correction term of the position of the hinge in state 2 is of the order of 8 nm when close to stall force. It is satisfying that this is consistent with the value of d_eff cited above and indicates that the way we include the two substeps in our model is reasonable. (See (27) for a discussion of the limitations of Eq. 8.)

The reaction rates for states with both heads attached to actin (see Fig. 1) are given by

(10)

(11)

(12)

(13)

(14)

(15)

where the nucleotide concentrations and [P_i] in Eqs. 11, 13 and 14 are given as dimensionless quantities (see comments under Eq. 2). The value is a microscopic timescale related to the characteristic oscillation frequency of the protein. The free parameters in the model are the activation energies the energy differences G_i, and the strain energies. When an estimate is made for these free parameters, the resulting energy landscape (Fig. 4) gives directly all the predicted reaction rates, and the model's predictions for myosin-V's velocity and run lengths along the actin filament (see Appendix A). Note that is not really an independent variable since it can be absorbed into the activation energies:

View larger version (5K): [in this window] [in a new window]   FIGURE 4  The one-dimensional energy landscape that we find for the walk of myosin-V in which the states in the model are indicated by the solid circles. Energy is measured in units of kBT. The energy changes associated with the dashed transitions are Estrain and bEstrain, being the energy barriers involved in moving away from state 2. Also shown is the rate-limiting activation energy between state 4 and state 5. The generalized reaction coordinate X can be thought of as measuring the progress around the main reaction cycle (Fig. 1). As such, it reflects a combination of physical motion and the progress of biochemical reactions, according to the substep. The shape of the curve is somewhat arbitrary, but the peaks and the troughs are at the correct energies determined by the optimal values ( and Gi) where the energies are recalculated for the reference concentrations [ATP] = 1 nM, [ADP] = [Pi] = 0.1 µM, i.e., the log of each concentration appears in the energy barriers.

(16)

which gives the thermodynamic driving force for the molecular motor (32,37). To fulfill detailed balance we have = 1 at equilibrium (37). As expected from the energy balance the external force appears in as f_exd; this is the total work done by the motor when completing one reaction cycle with step-length d. From Eq. 16 it is clear how the external force shifts the apparent equilibrium constant of the hydrolysis reaction. This coupling between the external force and the free energy of the hydrolysis of ATP, gives directly the thermodynamic upper bound on the stall force f_stall = G_hyd/d (2.8 pN at cellular conditions). The presence of futile cycles will influence the upper bound on the stall force, but this correction is found to be insignificant for our (best) model.

The reaction rates for the futile cycle are given by

(17)

(18)

(19)

(20)

Here u_{i, j} and w_{i, j} are the reaction rates from state i to state j. Using the fact that the two head elements are structurally identical, we make the assumption that the front head has to have the neck at a similar angle to that between the rear neck and the actin filament in step 4 of the main cycle to make it possible for ADP to be released or bind to the myosin motor domain (Eqs. 17 and 18). To achieve this, the front head has to overcome the strain energy in the molecule in state 4 which creates an energy barrier E_strain for the ADP release reaction governed by rate u_4,6 (see Fig. 3). In this way myosin-V synchronizes the biochemical reactions of the two heads.

To move from state 2 to state 6 (Fig. 1), the molecule has to increase the internal strain by E_strain without the energy from the hydrolysis reaction (Eq. 20), so there is a very low probability for the futile cycle to run in reverse (effectively becoming a useful reaction pathway). The reaction rates in the futile cycle follow the reaction rates for the main cycle except for the extra barrier caused by the strain in the molecule, so there is only one new parameter that appears in the model. In principle, E_strain could be estimated if the elastic moduli of the different parts of the molecule were known, by making a detailed structural model based on EM measurements (20) and crystal structures (38,39) of myosin-V (see also (30)). We will not attempt to do this here, but leave E_strain as an undetermined energy barrier, an energy barrier used by myosin-V to synchronize the reaction cycles of the two head elements.

The detachment from state 2 takes place if the ADP detaches from the rear head before the front head becomes weakly bound. The relevant reaction rates are

(21)

(22)

(23)

The external force will increase the detachment rate of the single head (an effect we neglect when both heads are strongly attached, which should be a good approximation when considering the strain level in the molecule). Pulling experiments on S1 give an apparent interaction distance of = 2.4 nm (21) for the external force (Eq. 23).

An extended model where we would also consider the reattachment rate of motors is of course possible (40), but not particularly relevant since the local bulk concentration of motors and of actin target sites is usually not well-controlled in an experiment. Our main focus in this model will be single-molecule experiments and their predictions.

In our model we use the fact that the two head regions of the myosin-V protein are identical and have identical biochemical reaction paths. It might seem at first that this would be an obstacle to the processive motion of the protein, since the reactions of the two heads must be out of phase to ensure that at all times at least one of the two heads is strongly attached to the actin filament. However, evidence has been found in EM experiments that the intramolecular strain affects the two bound heads asymmetrically (9,20). The model outlined above shows explicitly how this asymmetrical strain can be used by the two heads to coordinate their reaction cycles and to minimize the impact of the futile cycles and detachment rates.

	PARAMETERS

TOP ABSTRACT INTRODUCTION MODEL REACTION RATES PARAMETERS OPTIMIZATION RESULTS DISCUSSION APPENDIX A: ANALYTICAL... APPENDIX B: COST FUNCTION ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS REFERENCES

 
The fundamental timescales, and _d can be estimated using the Stokes-Einstein relation. The value _d is related to the diffusion time of the whole head element (with a diameter of 30 nm) over the step size d_W 25 nm, which gives _d 10^–5 s. Similarly, is related to movement of a few nanometers, where the relevant length scale is the thickness of the head element, giving 10^–8 s. Note that any difference between or _d in the different steps will be absorbed into the activation energies (see comment under Eq. 15) so we are only interested in the order of magnitude of these timescales. Similarly, the activation energies will also be modified by the bulk pH and ionic strength, even though the influence of these solution properties are not included explicitly in the model.

Estimates of some of the activation energies are available through chemical kinetic reaction rate measurements, but we will not try to guess the values of the activation energies but leave them all as free parameters. The model of the myosin-V walk outlined above is a fairly detailed model containing seven different states and 13 reaction rates, but the number of undetermined parameters is still relatively low. We have the four activation energies, three independent energy differences G_i (where one energy difference will be dependent because of Eq. 2), and finally two terms connected to the strain level in the molecule, E_strain and E_strain. We are therefore left with nine undetermined parameters in our model of the myosin-V walk, which is a small number considering that the model is able to predict not only the walk's dependence on the bulk concentrations of ATP, ADP, and P_i, but also how the external force couples to the walk. The model is also detailed in its prediction of how the internal strain influences the walk and the level of strain in the molecule. Our model is therefore overdetermined with respect to the available experimental data and provides many measurable predictions.

	OPTIMIZATION

TOP ABSTRACT INTRODUCTION MODEL REACTION RATES PARAMETERS OPTIMIZATION RESULTS DISCUSSION APPENDIX A: ANALYTICAL... APPENDIX B: COST FUNCTION ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS REFERENCES

 
To search the parameter space computationally we define a cost function which quantifies the agreement between the model and the data. There is clearly some subjectivity involved in choosing the terms in the cost function: for example, one might be more inclined to include data that have been confirmed by several different research groups. We cannot investigate all possible permutations of our cost function since the optimization approach is quite computationally demanding. However, the 17 experimental features that we identify, and encode in the cost function, are those that we expect a good model for the walk of myosin-V to reproduce. These include trends observed under variation of nucleotide bulk concentrations and the external force. Each term in the cost function was included to search for such a trend or to restrict the value of the energy jumps G_i between substeps. Likewise, we specify variances to indicate how large a deviation from each target value we deem acceptable. The cost function, , given in Appendix B, is constructed as a simple sum of 17 terms and each term gives an O(1) contribution when within the accepted experimental error (as defined by our chosen variance). We believe that our cost function is a minimal encoding of the most important experimental trends, but it is possible to extend or modify our approach by including further or different data points if desired.

We do not choose arbitrarily what values the nine undetermined parameters should take but instead search the parameter space for favorable combinations using a technique based on simulated annealing (41) of the cost function. To make the search effective, we first evaluate the cost function at 50,000,000 points in a parameter space of (25 k_BT)⁹. (This is the energy available in the hydrolysis reaction, Eq. 2, under cellular conditions. The internal energy E_strain and energy differences G_i cannot be larger than the energy in the hydrolysis reaction, while there are no such limits in principle on the kinetic parameters and E_strain.) To make sure these points are evenly spread in the parameter space we use the Sobol quasi-random sequence (41,42). The 50 points with the lowest cost function from the Sobol sampling were then passed to a simulated annealing routine, where the cost function is the energy term. The number of steps in the simulated annealing is chosen so that it is equal to the number of steps in a random walk over the average distance between the Sobol points.

An attractive feature of estimating the free parameters in the model like this is that it has some similarities to the way the molecular motor has tuned the same parameters through evolution to achieve physiologically required velocities and run lengths under variable cellular conditions.

	RESULTS

TOP ABSTRACT INTRODUCTION MODEL REACTION RATES PARAMETERS OPTIMIZATION RESULTS DISCUSSION APPENDIX A: ANALYTICAL... APPENDIX B: COST FUNCTION ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS REFERENCES

 
After optimizing the parameters for our model (Table 1), it was found that there is one rate-limiting step, u₄ = 14.7 s^–1, corresponding to the largest value of for i = 2, ..., 5, which is the release of ADP from the rear head in state 4, Fig. 1. The ADP release rate is in quantitative agreement with kinetic measurements (11,13–16,22,24), which estimates u₄ between 10 s^–1 and 20 s^–1. From the model (Fig. 1) it can be seen why ADP release is the crucial reaction step for the myosin-V walk, since both the futile cycle and detachment depend on it. By slowing down the ADP release, myosin-V achieves a larger duty ratio for the myosin head, but more importantly, also reduces the flux around the futile cycle and similarly the detachment rate. Since the rate-limiting step also determines the average velocity of the motor, there is a tradeoff when tuning the rate of u₄. It is satisfying that the optimization scheme of our model is able to reproduce the kinetic tuning found experimentally. It is worth noting that no optimal solutions were found in other parts of the parameter space, i.e., no other possible combination of reaction rates could be found with either a different rate-limiting step or more than one rate-limiting step.

It is a somewhat subtle point that the velocities and run lengths that our model predicts (see Appendix A) are independent of one aspect of that model, specifically whether the mechanical motion between state 3 and state 4 is assumed to happen before or during the release of P_i. This is despite the fact that the forms of Eqs. 10 and 11 are sensitive to this difference: the (1 – b)E_strain term would appear in the exponential in u₃ and not in w₄ if the mechanical transition occurred before the phosphate release rather than during the phosphate release, as we assume here. The reason for this is that the optimization process fixes only the observable rates (u₃ and w₄). This appears to suggest that there may be some ambiguity in the value of the energy that appears in these rates, depending on whether the motion between state 3 and state 4 happens before or during the release of P_i, i.e., whether the peak in the energy landscape occurs closer to state 4 or state 3, respectively. We can nonetheless determine the form of the equations by considering the kinetic measurements for P_i release. These are carried out using single myosin heads without internal strain. If, for the intact two-headed molecule, the (1 – b)E_strain term was instead placed in the exponential in u₃ (and the peak in the energy landscape was close to state 4), then the rate for a strain-free transition, such as would be expected to be the case for single-headed molecules, would be larger by a factor of exp [(1 – b)E_strain], giving rise to unrealistic phosphate release rates that would be four orders-of-magnitude higher than 3200 s^–1. This provides quantitative evidence that the power stroke of the front lever arm takes place substantially after P_i is released, as is illustrated in Fig. 4 where the energy barrier between state 3 and state 4 is close to state 3.

We estimate the internal strain, E_strain = 12.8 k_BT, which gives a rigidity = 120 k_BT nm = 500 pN nm² for the lever arm (43), in agreement with other estimates in the literature (44). This gives a Young modulus of Y = 0.6 GPa, assuming the myosin neck has an effective radius of 1 nm, which is comparable to what is found in similar proteins (2). The strain barrier, E_strain, preventing the futile cycle, was found in the optimization scheme to be 5.4 k_BT, which slows down the release of ADP from the front head (state 4, Fig. 1) 50–200 times compared to the rear head under changing nucleotide concentrations in the bulk. This is consistent with measurements reported by Rosenfeld and Sweeney (24).

Among the more important properties of myosin-V are its velocity and processivity along the actin filament. We are interested in how these two properties are influenced by the bulk concentrations of nucleotides and the presence of an external force in our model. In single-molecule experiments, all of these parameters can be controlled and monitored, giving rise to direct measurements of their influence on the myosin-V walk.

The velocity of myosin-V has been measured at between 200 and 500 nm/s (13), which is consistent with the magnitude of the velocities predicted by the model. The velocity appears to follow a Michaelis-Menten-like form in which it becomes independent of ATP at high ATP concentration, while linearly dependent on ATP at low ATP concentrations (Fig. 5). There is similarly found to be a strong dependence of the velocity on the ADP concentration. P_i only has a measurable influence on the velocity (and the run length) at very large excess concentrations, similarly to what is found experimentally (13,23). When comparing the velocity dependence on concentration of ATP and ADP directly with experimental measurements (23), we find reasonable quantitative agreement (Fig. 5).

View larger version (9K): [in this window] [in a new window]   FIGURE 5  Predictions of velocity of myosin-V as a function of ADP, ATP, and Pi concentration that arise from our optimized (best) model with parameter values as shown in Table 1 (and used in all subsequent figures). In each case the other two reference concentrations are taken from [ATP] = 1 mM, [ADP] = 0.1 µM, or [Pi] = 0.1 µM. The experimental data for varying [ATP] (squares) and [ADP] (circles) are from Baker et al. (23).

View larger version (9K): [in this window] [in a new window]   FIGURE 6  The velocity as a function of force. The solid line (and circles) show results when [ATP] = 1 mM and [ADP] = 200 µM, the dashed line (and squares) when [ATP] = 1 mM and [ADP] = 1 µM, while for the dotted line (and diamonds) we have [ATP] = 10 µM and [ADP] = 1 µM. The model (the lines) shows similar trends to what is found experimentally (the circles, squares, and diamonds) (25).

View larger version (9K): [in this window] [in a new window]   FIGURE 7  Dwell time for [ATP] = 2 mM (solid line/circles), [ATP] = 10 µM (dotted line/squares), and [ATP] = 1 mM and [ADP] = 200 µM (dashed line/triangles). The experimental data are from Mehta et al. (11) (circles) and Uemura et al. (25) (squares and triangles).

View larger version (6K): [in this window] [in a new window]   FIGURE 8  The duty ratio, rd, as a function of force for [ATP] = 1 mM, [ADP] = [Pi] = 0.1 µM.

View larger version (7K): [in this window] [in a new window]   FIGURE 9  Run length L for different concentrations of ATP when the ADP concentration is equal to 1 mM (dotted-dashed line), 100 µM (dashed line), and 10 µM (solid line). At low ADP concentration, the run length becomes independent of ATP concentration. The prediction of the model is compared with experimental results at low ADP concentrations (circles) (23).

The run length drops off exponentially when increasing the force, as shown in Fig. 10. The run length is also found to be strongly influenced by pulling in the forward direction (negative force). This can be understood by considering Fig. 8. The duty ratio increases with a negative external force since the mechanical movement from state 1 to state 3 is accelerated. This also makes it less likely that the molecule will end up in state 7 and detach (Fig. 1). At high negative external forces though, the run length is decreased, since the larger force is pulling the molecule off the actin track (Eq. 23). This nonmonotonic behavior in the run length as a function of force was not observed in a recent study (26), which found the run length of myosin-V to be fairly insensitive to both positive and negative external force over a large range of values. Note that our model probably exaggerates the increase in attachment rate of the front head to actin when pulled strongly in the forward direction. For a strong force, the position of state 2 (Fig. 3) might change so much that the front head no longer is in the target zone, slowing down the diffusion to the target site. If a correction for this had been included in our model we believe that the run length increase for a negative external force would be reduced.

View larger version (6K): [in this window] [in a new window]   FIGURE 10  Run length L for different strengths of the external force when [ATP] = 1 mM and [ADP] = 200 µM. For negative external force, the run length has a nonmonotonic behavior, where it increases 10-fold before decreasing again.

View larger version (6K): [in this window] [in a new window]   FIGURE 11  The fraction of backward steps, –, is insignificant in the model until an external force of 2 pN is reached. The solid line is for [ATP] = 2 mM and [ADP] = 200 µM, while the dashed line is for a reduced ATP concentration of 100 µM.

View larger version (9K): [in this window] [in a new window]   FIGURE 12  The randomness ratio, , as a function of force at different ATP concentrations.

View larger version (7K): [in this window] [in a new window]   FIGURE 13  The circle shows the unperturbed velocity and run length for [ATP] = 1 mM, [ADP] = [Pi] = 0.1 µM, and zero external force. The squares show the influence on run length and velocity of changes of ±5% in each of the nine free parameters of the model (while keeping the other parameters fixed). The run length is very sensitive to changes in Also perturbing in Estrain gives quite a large change in run length. Large variation in velocity was only observed when perturbing the parameter G4.

View larger version (7K): [in this window] [in a new window]   FIGURE 14  Temperature dependence of velocity and run length (when [ATP] = 1 mM and [ADP] = 200 µM). The model predicts an increase in velocity with temperature, but a decrease of the run length. The velocity is found to be more sensitive to changes in temperature than the run length.

	DISCUSSION

TOP ABSTRACT INTRODUCTION MODEL REACTION RATES PARAMETERS OPTIMIZATION RESULTS DISCUSSION APPENDIX A: ANALYTICAL... APPENDIX B: COST FUNCTION ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS REFERENCES

There is necessarily some arbitrariness as to how many and which distinct states are included in a model, since the concept is strictly only a useful approximation to the complex, fluctuating motion of the protein. Several substates (and thereby substeps in the main reaction cycle), which have been identified experimentally or on thermodynamic grounds (16,39,48), are not included in this model. This means that the subreaction rates between some of the states have been combined into one effective rate. Where possible, we have chosen not to excessively coarse-grain the state space, e.g., by classifying many states together into fewer, more broadly defined states. Philosophically this seems wise if one is not certain a priori that such coarse-graining of state space will not reduce the precision or predictive power of the model. We also feel that it is of value that the model takes into account all the steps where the protein reacts with smaller bulk molecules, since bulk concentration is something that can be controlled experimentally. Similarly, we wanted to separate out the different steps that are expected to couple to the external force. As a result, the proposed model can make direct predictions as to how the external force produced by an optical tweezer, for instance, should change the behavior of the myosin-V walk. In any case, it is important to remember that the complexity of a model such as ours is not really a function of the number of states but rather the number of parameters, which remains small, the interpretation of the parameters, which remains physically clear, and the reaction network topology.

The elastic strain in the molecule plays several roles in our model; most importantly, the strain in the molecule synchronizes the chemical reactions of the two myosin heads. This is vital for making myosin-V an effective processive motor (22). The synchronization is caused by the slowing down of the ADP release from the lead head compared to the rear head in state 4, since the internal strain makes it less likely for the lead head to have the optimal angle relative to the actin filament necessary for ADP release. A related benefit of this is that the slowing down of ADP release from the lead head minimizes the impact of the futile cycle. Also, the strain biases the detached head to stay in the target zone (state 2, Figs. 1 and 2) when doing the (11-nm) biased diffusional search for the next attachment site on the actin filament. This bias both increases the velocity of the motor, since less time is used in the diffusional search for the next target site on the actin, and increases the processivity by decreasing the time spent with only one head strongly attached to the actin.

The model does not contain any direct dissipation of free energy G_diss. Such dissipation by friction and heat loss caused by the nonequilibrium motion of the protein would reduce the total useful work that the molecular motor could do by reducing the effective free energy of the hydrolysis reaction G_eff = G_hyd – G_diss. We have not tried to quantify the size of G_diss but assumed that it is relatively small. It would of course be possible to include G_diss as an undetermined parameter, even though we have chosen not to do this here. The model does take into account the energy dissipated by the futile hydrolysis of ATP by the futile cycle (Fig. 1) that does no work and creates no net movement, but since E_strain is estimated to be relatively large, the release rate of ADP from the front head in state 4 (Fig. 1) is reduced two orders-of-magnitude compared to the release of the rear head. This indicates that myosin-V is a tightly coupled motor under all conditions and the futile cycle will not dissipate significant energy.

The starting point for our model was the qualitative model proposed by Rief et al. (12) and the observation that myosin-V has a so-called powerstroke movement and a diffusional search. There are several alternative mechanisms suggested in the literature, although they typically have a lot in common since there is general agreement on the single head reaction mechanism. One influential alternative model has been proposed by De La Cruz et al. (49) where the strong attachment of the front head to actin is triggered by the release of the rear head. It is also possibl