ArticleInternational journal of molecular sciences2019
Processivity vs. Beating: Comparing Cytoplasmic and Axonemal Dynein Microtubule Binding Domain Association with Microtubule.
Article in International journal of molecular sciences, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
This study compares the role of electrostatics in the binding process between microtubules and two dynein microtubule-binding domains (MTBDs): cytoplasmic and axonemal. These two dyneins are distinctively different in terms of their functionalities: cytoplasmic dynein is processive, while axonemal dynein is involved in beating. In both cases, the binding requires frequent association/disassociation between the microtubule and MTBD, and involves highly negatively charged microtubules, including non-structured C-terminal domains (E-hooks), and an MTBD interface that is positively charged. This indicates that electrostatics play an important role in the association process. Here, we show that the cytoplasmic MTBD binds electrostatically tighter to microtubules than to the axonemal MTBD, but the axonemal MTBD experiences interactions with microtubule E-hooks at longer distances compared with the cytoplasmic MTBD. This allows the axonemal MTBD to be weakly bound to the microtubule, while at the same time acting onto the microtubule via the flexible E-hooks, even at MTBD⁻microtubule distances of 45 Å. In part, this is due to the charge distribution of MTBDs: in the cytoplasmic MTBD, the positive charges are concentrated at the binding interface with the microtubule, while in the axonemal MTBD, they are more distributed over the entire structure, allowing E-hooks to interact at longer distances. The dissimilarities of electrostatics in the cases of axonemal and cytoplasmic MTBDs were found not to result in a difference in conformational dynamics on MTBDs, while causing differences in the conformational states of E-hooks. The E-hooks' conformations in the presence of the axonemal MTBD were less restricted than in the presence of the cytoplasmic MTBD. In parallel with the differences, the common effect was found that the structural fluctuations of MTBDs decrease as either the number of contacts with E-hooks increases or the distance to the microtubule decreases.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.