Theoretical model for motility and processivity of two-headed molecular motors

Physical Review E - Statistical Physics, Plasmas, Fluids, and Related Interdisciplinary Topics

Volumn 67, Issue 6, 2003, Pages 13-

  Kanada, Ryo ^a   Sasaki, Kazuo ^a  

^a TOHOKU UNIVERSITY   (Japan)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ADENOSINE TRIPHOSPHATE; KINESIN; MOLECULAR MOTOR;

BIOLOGICAL MODEL; BIOPHYSICS; CHEMICAL MODEL; CHEMISTRY; HYDROLYSIS; MOVEMENT (PHYSIOLOGY); PHYSIOLOGY; PROCEDURES; STATISTICAL MODEL; THEORETICAL MODEL; TIME;

ADENOSINE TRIPHOSPHATE; BIOPHYSICS; HYDROLYSIS; KINESIN; MODELS, BIOLOGICAL; MODELS, CHEMICAL; MODELS, STATISTICAL; MODELS, THEORETICAL; MOLECULAR MOTOR PROTEINS; MOVEMENT; TIME FACTORS;

CALCULATIONS; COMPUTER SIMULATION; DIFFERENCE EQUATIONS; HYDROLYSIS; MATHEMATICAL MODELS; MOLECULAR STRUCTURE; NUMERICAL METHODS; PROBABILITY; PROTEINS; REACTION KINETICS;

KINESIN MOTORS; LANGEVIN EQUATION; LINEAR MOLECULAR TRACKS; MOLECULAR MOTORS; PROCESSIVE MOTION;

MOLECULAR DYNAMICS;

EID: 84929030026     PISSN: 1063651X     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevE.67.061917     Document Type: Article

References (35)

1. J. Howard, Mechanics of Motor Proteins and the Cytoskeleton (Sinauer Associates, Sunderland, MA, 2001).
2. B. Alberts, A. Johnson, J. Lewis, M. Raff, K. Roberts, and P. Walter, Molecular Biology of the Cell, 4th ed. (Garland Science, New York, 2002).
3. R.D. Vale and R.A. Milligan, Science 288, 88 (2000).
4. W. Hua, J. Chung, and J. Gelles, Science 295, 844 (2002).
5. K. Svoboda and S.M. Block, Cell 77, 773 (1994).
6. H. Kojima, E. Muto, H. Higuchi, and T. Yanagida, Biophys. J. 73, 2012 (1997).
7. K. Visscher, M.J. Schnitzer, and S.M. Block, Nature (London) 400, 184 (1999).
8. M.J. Schnitzer, K. Visscher, and S.M. Block, Nat. Cell Biol. 2, 718 (2000).
9. M.E. Fisher and A.B. Kolomeisky, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 98, 7748 (2001).
10. J. Prost, J.-F. Chauwin, L. Peliti, and A. Ajdari, Phys. Rev. Lett. 72, 2652 (1994).
11. R.D. Astumian and M. Bier, Phys. Rev. Lett. 72, 1766 (1994).
12. C.S. Peskin and G. Oster, Biophys. J. 68, 202s (1995).
13. I. Derényi and T. Vicsek, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 93, 6775 (1996).
14. R.D. Astumian, Science 276, 917 (1997).
15. F. Jülicher, A. Ajdari, and J. Prost, Rev. Mod. Phys. 69, 1269 (1997).
16. A. Parmeggiani, F. Jülicher, A. Ajdari, and J. Prost, Phys. Rev. E 60, 2127 (1999).
17. G.N. Stratopoulos, T.E. Dialynas, and G.P. Tsironis, Phys. Lett. A 252, 151 (1999).
18. A. Parmeggiani, F. Jülicher, L. Peliti, and J. Prost, Europhys. Lett. 56, 603 (2001).
19. R.F. Fox and M.H. Choi, Phys. Rev. E 63, 051901 (2001).
20. S. Rice, Nature (London) 402, 778 (1999).
21. Y. Okada and N. Hirokawa, Science 283, 1152 (1999).
22. Y. Okada and N. Hirokawa, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 97, 640 (2000).
23. W.O. Hancock and J. Howard, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 96, 13 147 (1999).
24. K. Tawada and K. Sekimoto, J. Theor. Biol. 150, 193 (1991).
25. R. Zwanzig, Nonequilibrium Statistical Mechanics (Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2001).
26. K. Svoboda, C.F. Schmidt, B.J. Schnapp, and S.M. Block, Nature (London) 365, 721 (1993).
27. In reality, the rate of transition (Formula presented) is about one order of magnitude smaller than (Formula presented) as discussed in what follows [see Eq. (26)], but is still much larger than (Formula presented)
28. W. Hua, E.C. Young, M.L. Fleming, and J. Gelles, Nature (London) 388, 390 (1997).
29. M.J. Schnitzer and S.M. Block, Nature (London) 388, 386 (1997).
30. The consideration in this paragraph ensures that the tight coupling can be realized even if the docking effect is absent (Formula presented) in the present model. Note that transition (Formula presented) occurs as frequently as transition (Formula presented) for (Formula presented) if (Formula presented) while the former transition rarely occurs as discussed in the previous paragraph if f is positive and not too small.
31. Here, in state (Formula presented) head 2 (attached head) should sit in the potential valley marked by the dot in Fig. 66 rather than the left valley, since head 2 is located in the former valley in state (Formula presented) for (Formula presented) as explained above. The situation of state (Formula presented) depicted in Fig. 66 is realized under high loads, which will be discussed later.
32. E.P. Sablin, Curr. Opin. Cell Biol. 12, 35 (2000).
33. M. Tomishige and R.D. Vale, J. Cell Biol. 151, 1081 (2000).
34. S.P. Gilbert, M.L. Moyer, and K.A. Johnson, Biochemistry 37, 792 (1998).
35. M.L. Moyer, S.P. Gilbert, and K.A. Johnson, Biochemistry 37, 800 (1998).