ReviewApplied microscopy2024
Research reviews on myosin head interactions with F-actin.
Review in Applied microscopy, 2024. 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
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
The sliding filament theory and the cross-bridge model have been fundamental in understanding muscle contraction. While the cross-bridge model explains the interaction between a single myosin head and actin filament, the native myosin molecule consists of two heads. This review explores the possibility and mechanism of two-headed binding in myosin II to the actin. Recent studies using electron tomography and resonance energy transfer have provided evidence in support of the occurrence of two-headed binding. The flexibility of the regulatory light chain (RLC) appears to play a significant role in enabling this binding mode. However, high-resolution structures of the RLCs in the two-headed bound state have not yet been reported. Resolving these structures, possibly through sub-tomogram averaging or single-particle analysis, would provide definitive proof of the conformational flexibility of RLCs and their role in facilitating two-headed binding. Further investigations are also required to address questions such as the predominance of two-headed versus single-headed binding and the influence of the state of each of the heads on the other. An understanding of the mechanism of two-headed binding is crucial for developing a comprehensive model of the cross-bridge cycle of the native myosin molecule.
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.