Fluorescence correlation spectroscopy analysis of segmental dynamics in actin filaments

Journal of Chemical Physics

Volumn 125, Issue 8, 2006, Pages

  Bernheim Groswasser, Anne ^a   Shusterman, Roman ^a   Krichevsky, Oleg ^a  

^a BEN GURION UNIVERSITY OF THE NEGEV   (Israel)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

COMPUTATION THEORY; FLUORESCENCE; IMAGE SEGMENTATION; MATHEMATICAL MODELS; POLYMERS; SPECTROSCOPIC ANALYSIS;

FLUORESCENCE CORRELATION; FLUORESCENCE CORRELATION SPECTROSCOPY (FCS); MEAN-SQUARE DISPLACEMENT; SEGMENTAL DYNAMICS;

FILAMENTS (LAMP);

ACTIN; DNA; POLYMER;

ANIMAL; ARTICLE; BIOPHYSICS; CHEMICAL MODEL; CHEMISTRY; CHICKEN; CONFORMATION; METABOLISM; METHODOLOGY; MICROFILAMENT; PHYSICAL CHEMISTRY; SKELETAL MUSCLE; SPECTROFLUOROMETRY; STATISTICAL MODEL; THEORETICAL MODEL; THERMODYNAMICS;

ACTINS; ANIMALS; BIOPHYSICS; CHEMISTRY, PHYSICAL; CHICKENS; DNA; MICROFILAMENTS; MODELS, CHEMICAL; MODELS, STATISTICAL; MODELS, THEORETICAL; MUSCLE, SKELETAL; NUCLEIC ACID CONFORMATION; POLYMERS; SPECTROMETRY, FLUORESCENCE; THERMODYNAMICS;

EID: 33748267883     PISSN: 00219606     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1063/1.2244550     Document Type: Article

References (40)

1. F. Gittes, B. Mickey, J. Nettleton, and J. Howard, J. Cell Biol. 120, 923 (1993).
2. T. Piekenbrock and E. Sackmann, Biopolymers 32, 1471 (1992).
3. J. Kas, H. Strey, and E. Sackmann, Nature (London) 368, 226 (1994).
4. L. LeGoff, O. Hallatschek, E. Frey, and F. Amblard, Phys. Rev. Lett. 89, 258101 (2002).
5. T. Gisler and D. A. Weitz, Phys. Rev. Lett. 82, 1606 (1999).
6. F. G. Schmidt, B. Hinner, and E. Sackmann, Phys. Rev. E 61, 5646 (2000).
7. A. Caspi, M. Elbaum, R. Granek, A. Lachish, and D. Zbaida, Phys. Rev. Lett. 80, 1106 (1998).
8. J. Y. Xu, A. Palmer, and D. Wirtz, Macromolecules 31, 6486 (1998).
9. I. Y. Wong, M. L. Gardel, D. R. Reichman, E. R. Weeks, M. T. Valentine, A. R. Bausch, and D. A. Weitz, Phys. Rev. Lett. 92, 178101 (2004).
10. G. Allegra and F. Ganazzoli, J. Chem. Phys. 74, 1310 (1981).
11. E. Farge and A. C. Maggs, Macromolecules 26, 5041 (1993).
12. L. Harnau, R. G. Winkler, and P. Reineker, J. Chem. Phys. 104, 6355 (1996).
13. L. Harnau, R. G. Winkler, and P. Reineker, J. Chem. Phys. 106, 2469 (1997).
14. R. Granek, J. Phys. II 7, 1761 (1997).
15. K. Kroy and E. Frey, Phys. Rev. E 55, 3092 (1997).
16. D. C. Morse, Phys. Rev. E 58, R1237 (1998).
17. F. Gittes and F. C. MacKintosh, Phys. Rev. E 58, R1241 (1998).
18. R. Shusterman, S. Alon, T. Gavrinyov, and O. Krichevsky, Phys. Rev. Lett. 92, 048303 (2004).
19. D. Lumma, S. Keller, T. Vilgis, and J. O. Radler, Phys. Rev. Lett. 90, 218301 (2003).
20. R. G. Winkler, S. Keller, and J. O. Rädler, Phys. Rev. E 73, 041919 (2006).
21. D. Magde, E. Elson, and W. Webb, Phys. Rev. Lett. 29, 705 (1972).
22. E. L. Elson and D. Magde, Biopolymers 13, 1 (1974).
23. D. Magde, E. L. Elson, and W. W. Webb, Biopolymers 13, 29 (1974).
24. E. Haustein and P. Schwille, Methods 29, 153 (2003).
25. N. L. Thompson, A. M. Lieto, and N. W. Allen, Curr. Opin. Struct. Biol. 12, 634 (2002).
26. Fluorescence Correlation Spectroscopy: Theory and Applications, edited by R. Rigler and E. Elson (Springer, Berlin, 2001).
27. O. Krichevsky and G. Bonnet, Rep. Prog. Phys. 65, 251297 (2002).
28. R. Rigler, U. Mets, J. Widengren, and P. Kask, Eur. Biophys. J. 22, 169 (1993).
29. B. J. Bern and R. Pecora, Dynamic Light Scattering (Wiley, New York, 1976).
30. R. Everaers, F. Julicher, A. Ajdari, and A. C. Maggs, Phys. Rev. Lett. 82, 3717 (1999).
31. J. D. Pardee and J. A. Spudich, Methods Enzymol. 85, 164 (1982).
32. E. Andrianantoandro, L. Blanchoin, D. Sept, J. A. McCammon, and T. D. Pollard, J. Mol. Biol. 312, 721 (2001).
33. For fluorescence microscopy observations the whole filament has to be visualized. Thus the samples are polymerized from totally fluorescent seeds as in sample 1 procedure. However, the polymerization mixture had 1:9 fluorescent to nonfluorescent G-actin. This preparation results in overall labeled filaments with bright spots marking the places of former seeds. For microscopy visualization and length measurements the solutions were diluted to 0.1 μM actin concentration (ten times smaller than for FCS measurements).
34. E. Perret, A. Leung, A. Morel, H. Feracci, and P. Nassoy, Langmuir 18, 846 (2002).
35. J. J. Magda, H. T. Davis, and M. Tirrell, J. Chem. Phys. 85, 6674 (1986).
36. D. C. Morse, Macromolecules 31, 7030 (1998).
37. E. Frey, K. Kroy, and J. Wilhelm, in Advances in Structural Biology, edited by S. K. Mathotra and J. A. Tuszynski (Jai, London, 1998), Vol. 5.
38. J. Rotne and S. Prager, J. Chem. Phys. 50, 4831 (1969).
39. We note here that for the weakly entangled solutions such as our samples, it is might be more appropriate to use mesh size ξ as an upper cutoff when evaluating hydrodynamic interactions and to use polymer length l for the calculation of eigenmodes in the theory of Harnau et al. However, there is almost no difference in the net result for monomers' MSD when separating ξ and l length scales as compared to the calculation with a single parameter l as put forward in the original theory (Ref. 12).
40. 2(t)〉. While we are ambivalent on this issue, both types of comparison lead to essentially the same conclusions.